Free speech vs hate speech ( or politically incorrect views )

[Bubbles]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/opinion/free-speech-vs-hate-speech.html?_r=0

I'm sure we all have our different opinions on where the line should be drawn.

An example for me would be that although I am tolerant of Charlie Hebdo critising and sending up religions I am not so tolerant of one of their latest offerings.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jan/14/charlie-hebdo-cartoon-depicting-drowned-child-alan-kurdi-sparks-racism-debate


Now that upsets me, I think they have crossed a line.

cartoon in the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has caused online shock by suggesting drowned toddler Alan Kurdi would have grown up to be a sexual abuser like those immigrants allegedly involved in the assaults in Cologne.

Charlie Hebdo' s attitude seems to be theirs is a dissenting voice.

The cartoon was published a week after the anniversary of the attacks on the offices of Charlie Hebdo, when free speech organisations came together to proclaim the importance of protecting dissenting voices.

Dissenting voices?

No, it was an unpleasant slur on a little boy that drowned. In fact it devalues refugee children's lives because in a way it kind of says, it's ok for them to die, look what they could grow up to be........

If you take dissenting voices as meaning "offensive views", where does that impact on the freedom to voice for example  ( dissenting voices) the man who wants to legalise rape on private property?

Is he a dissenting voice?


At what point, do you suppress dissenting voices? And can that lead to no dissenting voices at all, when decided by the majority who can have wide ranging views on what is acceptable and what isn't?

Personal judgement is difficult because we all get offended by different things.

Should we just go by numbers of people offended? Or not bother to suppress anything no matter how offensive.

Some might argue it should be suppressed if it causes harm. But who can decide if someone is harmed? And whose definition of harm?

Some people are probably deeply offended by mother in law jokes, and might say it stereotypes mothering laws and causes harm.

Now people will agree racist jokes might fit that one , but mother in laws don't tend to get a look in.

I think jokes made at the expense of a drowned child and stereotyping refugees causes harm.

So where would you draw the line?

🌹

( one persons politically incorrect speech, is another persons hate speech)

[Outrider]

"Free Speech, except..." is not free speech, it's as simple as that. As soon as you draw a line, as soon as you accept that the concept of a taboo is valid, as soon as you privelege some ideas and areas as being beyond discussion, you've created something that can't be questioned, and everything has to be questioned.

I wouldn't draw a line - all ideas have to be free to be published, free to be seen. It's how we know who the idiots and the hatemongers are, how we let them identify themselves, how we detect that patterns in their thoughts and behaviours, and how we show each other what it is that needs to be countered.

No ideas can be beyond criticism. All opinions can be dismissed, but they have to be made first.

Personally I find some of CH's output distasteful and provocative, but I don't see provocative as a bad thing, and distasteful is about how I take it, not what they do.

O.

[Rhiannon]

The purpose of the Hebdo cartoon was to expose Europe's hypocrisy over the refugee crisis - one minute weeping over dead children and the next treating them all like potential sex offenders. It was a very unpleasant cartoon but the sickness of human nature can also be highly unpleasant, and the work of satire is to expose that to ourselves. No wonder we prefer not to see it.

[Bubbles]

The purpose of the Hebdo cartoon was to expose Europe's hypocrisy over the refugee crisis - one minute weeping over dead children and the next treating them all like potential sex offenders. It was a very unpleasant cartoon but the sickness of human nature can also be highly unpleasant, and the work of satire is to expose that to ourselves. No wonder we prefer not to see it.

It upset his family, not sure they saw it that way.

[Rhiannon]

It upset his family, not sure they saw it that way.

And that's sad and unfair. But at the same time it's possible for the family to hear why the cartoon was drawn and published. Personally I think given the toxic situation brewing we need to have a clear-eyed view of it, including our own part in it. It shouldn't take the work of Charlie Hebdo and those like them to make us think about our attitudes and motives but maybe they think they have no choice if more moderate voices are being ignored.

[Shaker]

The purpose of the Hebdo cartoon was to expose Europe's hypocrisy over the refugee crisis - one minute weeping over dead children and the next treating them all like potential sex offenders. It was a very unpleasant cartoon but the sickness of human nature can also be highly unpleasant, and the work of satire is to expose that to ourselves. No wonder we prefer not to see it.

Christopher Hitchens used to talk a lot about the ironic mind versus the literal mind - the literal mind is the one that's a bit Asperger's (no slight intended) and is tone-deaf to irony and/or sarcasm and sees only what's immediately apparent without picking up on subtext. The danger with satire is that in being overly subtle, the literal-minded see only surface and miss out on what's being satirised; therefore many people took serious offence at the CH cartoon because the thing being satirised - ugly and obnoxious attitudes toward refugees, not a small dead child - passed them by. It's a dangerous line to tread and a fine one, and satirists have always been aware of this.

[Bubbles]

And that's sad and unfair. But at the same time it's possible for the family to hear why the cartoon was drawn and published. Personally I think given the toxic situation brewing we need to have a clear-eyed view of it, including our own part in it. It shouldn't take the work of Charlie Hebdo and those like them to make us think about our attitudes and motives but maybe they think they have no choice if more moderate voices are being ignored.

Here is a clear eyed veiw on it

Erbil // The father of a drowned Syrian toddler wept when he saw a cartoon depicting his drowned son Aylan Kurdi as an adult involved in sexual harassment.

“When I saw the picture, I cried,” Abdullah Kurdi said on Saturday, referring to the cartoon in French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. “My family is still in shock.”

He said the cartoon was “inhuman and immoral” and as bad as the actions of the “war criminals and terrorists” who have caused widespread death and displacement in Syria and elsewhere.

The cartoon shows a pervert chasing a woman, with the caption asking: “What would have become of small Aylan if he grew up?”

“Someone who gropes asses in Germany,” it added, alluding to a rash of crime targeting women at New Year’s festivities in Cologne that has been blamed on migrants.


http://www.thenational.ae/world/middle-east/drowned-syrian-toddlers-father-wept-over-charlie-hebdo-cartoon

The real motive of Charlie Hebdo, is to make money.

[Bubbles]

Christopher Hitchens used to talk a lot about the ironic mind versus the literal mind - the literal mind is the one that's a bit Asperger's (no slight inended) and is tone-deaf to irony and/or sarcasm and sees only what's immediately apparent without picking up on subtext. The danger with satire is that in being overly subtle, the literal-minded see only surface and miss out on what's being satirised; therefore many people took serious offence at the CH cartoon because the thing being satirised - ugly and obnoxious attitudes toward refugees, not a small dead child - passed them by. It's a dangerous line to tread and a fine one, and satirists have always been aware of this.

I see it differently.

It's not hypocritical to feel sadness at the death of a small boy,  and to next feel cross at the behaviour of some male adults, just because they happen to have the same ethnic background.

I took offence at the cartoon because it's nasty and implies something that people are not really saying.

[Rhiannon]

Here is a clear eyed veiw on it

The real motive of Charlie Hebdo, is to make money.

There are easier ways of making money than risking being mown down by Kalashnikovs. The cartoonists had armed guards for years before the attacks.

The offence taken by the family is very sad. I wish it hadn't happened. But on focussing on that it's easy to avoid the cartoon's actual message, and get outraged over that rather than our attitude to the refugee crisis.

[Shaker]

Here is a clear eyed veiw on it

Not really - it's just a view you happen to agree with, which is not the same thing.

The real motive of Charlie Hebdo, is to make money.

It's a magazine whose staff don't work for free, nor do the printers and distributors and the newsagents and other shops where it's sold.

None of that precludes them from being able to satirise what they think needs to be satirised.

[Shaker]

I took offence at the cartoon because it's nasty and implies something that people are not really saying.

Some people are saying that hordes of swarthy ragheads are infesting Europe to besmirch our fragrant and chaste ladies, however - it's that sort of mindless idiocy that CH was taking the piss out of.

[Bubbles]

Some people are saying that hordes of swarthy ragheads are infesting Europe to besmirch our fragrant and chaste ladies, however - it's that sort of mindless idiocy that CH was taking the piss out of.

So hundreds of German women are lying then? and in this case it's ok to tell them it's their fault because they need to dress a certain way, to discourage groping hands.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/german-women-now-fear-their-safety-is-being-compromised-for-the-sake-of-political-correctness-34345609.html

[Rhiannon]

So hundreds of German women are lying then? and in this case it's ok to tell them it's their fault because they need to dress a certain way, to discourage groping hands.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/german-women-now-fear-their-safety-is-being-compromised-for-the-sake-of-political-correctness-34345609.html

Where on earth did you get to that from Shaker's post? He said nothing of the kind.

[Bubbles]

All liars?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35250903

[Udayana]

Some people are saying that hordes of swarthy ragheads are infesting Europe to besmirch our fragrant and chaste ladies, however - it's that sort of mindless idiocy that CH was taking the piss out of.

Doubt that most people would read it that way.

[Shaker]

So hundreds of German women are lying then? and in this case it's ok to tell them it's their fault because they need to dress a certain way, to discourage groping hands.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/german-women-now-fear-their-safety-is-being-compromised-for-the-sake-of-political-correctness-34345609.html

No they're not lying at all, but this was an isolated incident that doesn't reflect on all refugees in the way that right-wingers and xenophobes make out. It's fallacious thinking of the Hitler-Stalin-Franco-had-moustaches-therefore-any-man-with-a-moustache-is-a-dictator kind - taking a few and making them representative of the whole.

[Bubbles]

Where on earth did you get to that from Shaker's post? He said nothing of the kind.

Indirectly he did.

[Shaker]

Doubt that most people would read it that way.

Indeed - most people would not and do not, as most people are not complete pilchards.

The fact however that it's a sentiment we've seen expressed on this very forum indicates that it's a view held by some not overly bright and fearful people.

[Shaker]

Indirectly he did.

No he didn't.

[Rhiannon]

I'm getting rather disturbed by this idea that anyone saying there's hypocrisy in our attitude to refugees is somehow accusing the Cologne victims of lying.

[Bubbles]

No they're not lying at all, but this was an isolated incident that doesn't reflect on all refugees in the way that right-wingers and xenophobes make out. It's fallacious thinking of the Hitler-Stalin-Franco-had-moustaches-therefore-any-man-with-a-moustache-is-a-dictator kind - taking a few and making them representative of the whole.

No it doesn't, but some people appear to be running away from the idea that a high percentage of the perpetrators Could have been as the women describe.

That doesn't mean they are all guilty though.

We need to see more of this on the media.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-35322484

IMO.

The immigrants who have done this should be seen to be punished, just like anyone else who has ( there have been claims of a cover up to stem the anti immigrant leanings)
I think that's not helpful.

[Udayana]

Indeed - most people would not and do not, as most people are not complete pilchards.

The fact however that it's a sentiment we've seen expressed on this very forum indicates that it's a view held by some not overly bright and fearful people.

No .. I mean't the opposite of what you took ..

Most people would read it as, humorously though sadly, reinforcing criticism of immigration and calling for some realism.

[Rhiannon]

No it doesn't, but some people appear to be running away from the idea that a high percentage of the perpetrators Could have been as the women describe.

That doesn't mean they are all guilty though.

We need to see more of this on the media.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-35322484

IMO.

The immigrants who have done this should be seen to be punished, just like anyone else who has ( there have been claims of a cover up to stem the anti immigrant leanings)
I think that's not helpful.

Who are these 'some people'? We know there was a playing-diwn of the ethnic identity of the perpetrators to start with, but that was trying to hush things up, not running away - and a massive breach of trust to boot.

Unless you mean posters here are running away from it?

[Bubbles]

I'm getting rather disturbed by this idea that anyone saying there's hypocrisy in our attitude to refugees is somehow accusing the Cologne victims of lying.

Well either the women were attacked by men that fitted the description they gave, or they weren't.

Because if the CH cartoon implies what you say it does, it implies that the women claiming this,  are part of some hypocritical attitude towards immigrants, and it's all a big attitude problem.

Ultimately then......
That by the women sympathising with the death of the little boy while claiming to be abused by immigrants, they are being hypocritical.

Can you not see that?

It implies any criticism of immigrants or group of immigrants ( even in the wrong) shouldn't be criticised.

It reminds me of the U.K. When social workers refused to tackle child abuse and  Asian men in case they were accused of racism.


Sometimes, it happens.

Groups of individuals doing wrong get protected because they are perceived of being in a protected group.

CH by using that cartoon, and implying that anyone linking immigrants with a situation....... Is creating protection for criminals within a protected group.

To me, that's despicable

Just like the social workers not looking into child abuse properly, because of the ethnic group of the perpetrators.

[Bubbles]

Who are these 'some people'? We know there was a playing-diwn of the ethnic identity of the perpetrators to start with, but that was trying to hush things up, not running away - and a massive breach of trust to boot.

Unless you mean posters here are running away from it?

I just wrote a reply but the site won't let me post it.

Basically it's the " some "people glossing over it. Making aspects Taboo rather than dealing with it. Bit about it here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35241808

It might be a good idea to split some of this thread  and put the relevant posts on the other thread, about the attacks.

We are drifting .....