The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > I believe in free speech but....

I believe in free speech but....

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 13
  10. 14
  11. 15
  12. All
Well CJ MORGAN it would appear that, in principle, we're on the same side here. Whether Henson's child models suffer harm is a question of fact and we'll have an answer in a few years.

Examinator, you argue that we should "…preclude acts that would reasonably offend…"

Your post is a typical example of the "I believe in free speech but…." genre.

Who defines "reasonably?" Kevin Rudd? John Howard? Cardinal Pell? Sheik Fehmi Naji El-Imam, Australia's new mufti? Robert Goot, president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry?

In other words, examinator, who are the DE FACTO censors?

"Brokeback Mountain" offended many people. Who are you to say that their feelings are "unreasonable?" Should Brokeback Mountain be banned?

In reality the need to avoid giving offence under threat of criminal prosecution or a civil lawsuit would lead to self-censorship and it would become difficult to hold a public debate on controversial issues. Imagine if all discussion about Israel were constrained by the need to avoid offending Jews.

You cite the "artist" who dismembered a cow in front of the Melbourne art gallery and state:

"I see no reason why anyone should be able to publicly impose their lack of sensitivity on others."

Here you have an interesting point. The artist did it in a PUBLIC SPACE.

If homosexual acts offend me I need not see Brokeback Mountain. I need not enter the chamber in which "Piss Christ" is on display.

But public spaces are different. If I have business in the gallery precinct I may not be able to avoid seeing this so-called artist dismember a cow.

From my perspective the short answer is this. All the cases we considered are permissible under a free speech code but not all of them may be uttered or displayed in public spaces. So "Piss Christ" may be displayed in an art gallery but not on a billboard
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Friday, 5 September 2008 3:08:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What Veronika and CJ Morgan said.

If people are not allowed to express their thoughts they'll just be thinking them without expressing them.
There can't be a really good debate if people can't express their thoughts.

Let it out, and piss whatever you think needs pissing.

When thoughts are out, at least they can be discussed.
When we have to bottle up thoughts because others don't find them acceptable we might express them in some other way and it might be worse.

However, when we express thoughts we naturally have to take responsibility and consequences for whatever we utter
Posted by Celivia, Friday, 5 September 2008 3:21:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is a genre of punditry that I call "I believe in free speech but…." The but then effectively negates the professed belief in free speech.

Similar to people running around professing to oppose racism, except....

Many confuse receipt of compensation for being a victim of racism with an excuse to continue practice with just modified flavor...

.
Posted by polpak, Friday, 5 September 2008 3:49:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One slight modification, Boaz.

>>All the exibits will be placed on public view at the State Library<<

The exhibits that stevenlmeyer identifies were on public display, certainly. But within the confines of a gallery.

This provides a context that explicitly states "you are looking at [what some people believe are] works of art".

This is, in my view, fundamentally different from placing them in a public area that does not carry with it the same message.

The word "library" carries connotations of learning, studying, quiet, even solitude - a place that you can reasonably expect to be free of disturbance.

A gallery, by contrast, is a place where artists like to think they are specifically permitted to disturb you - that is one of the functions of art, they will say, to encourage you to see and experience things differently.

Context is, I believe, everything in this.

I have absolutely no interest in seeing the artifacts you describe, and would expect that by choosing to go to the library rather than the gallery, I would not be required to do so.

But I would fully support their display in an environment designed for the purpose.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 5 September 2008 4:53:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I believe in true free speech. However, I don't know what a torah scroll is, but if it is an historical artifact (which it sounds like it is), i would view it as destruction of a priceless cultural document and be against it -if it's only a reproduction, I wouldn't have any problem. Religious people have a massive problem with free speech which is why I consider religion to be a scourge of a free society.

Essentially, it's the mentality of, "I am offended, therefore, you must..." This panders to all manner of intolerance and bigotry so that eventually it leads to morality being legislated and people being unable to express themselves properly
Posted by Steel, Friday, 5 September 2008 5:14:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Steel wrote:

"I am offended, therefore, you must..."

Exactly!

Usually with the addendum:

"...or I will sue you, drag you before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, riot, kill, burn your country's flag or embassy or both, etc. etc."

Here is an image of a Torah Scroll:

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/torah.jpg

The "Torah" is the first five books of the old testament.

Torah scrolls are mostly not priceless artefacts but they are pretty expensive. The cost would run into tens of thousands of dollars.

A genuine Torah scroll is handwritten on parchment by a specially trained scribe. Torah scrolls are revered objects. If one is dropped during the course of a service all those present must fast for a day. A pious Jew would probably feel about the burning of a Torah scroll the same way a Muslim would feel about flushing a koran down the toilet.

In practice I'm not sure how you would acquire a Torah scroll for the purposes of burning or immersing in urine. A scribe is unlikely to sell you one unless you are a genuine synagogue.

You could steal one but that would lay you open to a charge of theft. You may also face a civil suit for the recovery of the cost of the scroll.

You could dummy up a scroll but I doubt anyone would care.

Torah scrolls can be quite big so if you want to immerse one in urine you would need to collect the stuff over several weeks. Or, I suppose, you could assemble a large number of "donors."
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Friday, 5 September 2008 6:11:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. ...
  9. 13
  10. 14
  11. 15
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy