Ludwig. I have a personal preference to have the 'greasy areas' as wide as possible and still maintain a civilised society and discourse. I am fearfull of the 'trend' to legalise and or regulate so many areas of our lives.

The NSW premier is worried about there being so little success in prosecuting cases of 'racism'. Perhaps that is because there just hasn't been the racism that he seems to think is occurring around him?

Hasbeen has so accurately expressed my own feelings of offence taken by me vis a vis our PM. But, it is me TAKING offence, as opposed to her giving it, I am sure that she tries very hard not to be offensive. In the same way, you have described very accurately and succinctly my own feelings towards our Sarah. (Truly, I cringe)

A most interesting and well argued group of posts gentlemen and ladies.

By the way, having revealed my feelings regarding two female polices here, I wonder if I have met the criteria for the new and improved definition of misogynist?

Cheers.

Ludwig <<But phanto, isn’t deliberately offensive speech part of aggressive behaviour?>>

Deliberately offensive speech is aggressive behaviour but it is very hard for a court to conclude that it was offensive or deliberate. Speech is used for many things and therefore its intended purpose can be misconstrued. It is not like violence which is another form of aggression. If you attack someone with a gun or a knife or your fists there is no doubt you are being aggressive – your intention is to hurt someone. If you use words there will be doubt and people take advantage of such doubt when they say ‘I was only joking’ or ‘you are too sensitive’ even when they know full well that they intended to hurt. A court may not be able to respond justly to such aggression but an individual could by taking their own action to withdraw otherwise reasonable behaviour in relation to the aggressor.

In the example of Jones there were no laws to administer justice but he surely got his comeuppance from the Australian public and his advertisers. I doubt a court would have been so vicious in their response. But he may have been treated unfairly. Even though I used him as an example of aggressive behaviour it is quite possible that his intent was not to hurt the Prime Minister as Prompete said. He could have been trying to rally support for his particular political causes by co-opting people not on the basis of reason but on a shared personal dislike for Julia Gillard. He may not have intended for her to hear those comments - if he wanted to be certain of offending her in that way he could have done so on his radio show – he’s said worse things.

Continued

Although I am advocating taking personal action against aggression where you think it has occurred I also think many people in the Jones case took action when there was no aggression directed towards them. Many people dislike him because of his attitudes and values and the power he wields and they jumped on the bandwagon to get at him. They were punishing him for having opinions and values which they do not share and not because of what he said to a group of his disciples.

I don’t think the analogy of the road and workplace are quite the same as this situation. We follow road rules not out of courtesy but because it would be very dangerous not to. If there were no rules there would be chaos. We also have rules of behaviour at work not out of courtesy but to make sure the aims of the workplace are met. There are no utilitarian reasons to have rules governing speech.

Courteous and respectful behaviour is behaviour that we would like to see but if it doesn’t happen then we just take personal action or we forget about it and move on. We have to make those choices nearly every day. If we were to go to court every time someone spoke to us in an offensive manner we wouldn’t get much done.

<< Ludwig. I have a personal preference to have the 'greasy areas' as wide as possible and still maintain a civilised society and discourse. I am fearfull of the 'trend' to legalise and or regulate so many areas of our lives. >>

Interesting comment Prompete.

One of my most basic premises regarding law is that it be as concise as possible and that the policing regime be as even-handed as possible, so that the grey areas are reduced to a minimum, and the likelihood of the authorities treating different people very differently for very similar misdemeanours is reduced to a minimum.

Having a tight legal paradigm with a high standard of regulation and uniformity does not mean having more regulations and restrictions in our lives.

<< Deliberately offensive speech is aggressive behaviour but it is very hard for a court to conclude that it was offensive or deliberate >>

Phanto, there is always going to be a complete spectrum from pure unadulterated offensive speech to offensive speech that is rendered with very good cause.

The same applies to physical violence, for which there could well strong mitigating circumstances.

Your separation of offensive speech from physical violence on the grounds that physical violence is easy for a court to convict someone over doesn’t hold up at all. It is all difficult territory.

<< Although I am advocating taking personal action against aggression where you think it has occurred I also think many people in the Jones case took action when there was no aggression directed towards them. Many people dislike him because of his attitudes and values and the power he wields and they jumped on the bandwagon to get at him. >>

This is dangerous territory. Is it right for us to condone strong repudiatory action against someone who has not broken the law?? Especially when as you say many of those doing it would not be doing it for the right reasons pertaining to what he said about Gillard, but for some broader and more general dislike of the man. And once things like this get a foothold, there could well be lots of unscrupulous hangers-on getting into the act well, simply because it is an opportunity to hit a high-flyer when he is down.

continued

<< We follow road rules not out of courtesy but because it would be very dangerous not to >>

You can’t separate courteous driving from safe driving. They are essentially the same thing. The most discourteous driving is to place other drivers under an unnecessary increased risk of mishap, by way of tailgating, speeding, dangerous overtaking, cutting in front, etc, etc.

<< We also have rules of behaviour at work not out of courtesy but to make sure the aims of the workplace are met. >>

Yes. Courtesy is very closely related to the achievement of one’s work duties in an efficient manner.

So why should it be different with freedom of speech? Why wouldn’t we implement laws to eliminate or reduce the worst and most offensive aspects of free speech? Wouldn’t it be for the greater good?

There are laws covering defamation and the like. So it would not be too much of a further extension to implement laws to restrict offensive speech. But as I said in a previous post, it should only apply in a public environment, or perhaps in a setting where there are a number of people, such as a private meeting, that may be misled by offensive and scurrilous comments. It should not apply in a private one-on-one conversation.