Gabriella,
As I said I have no problem sticking to the facts, which is you queried the line about the fire, I then referred you to the link to the article to show that the fire was the author's tag on line in reference to the burning of the consulate in Benghazi. When you still seemed to think the traditional story included the reference to not setting fire to a house, I then spelled it out in #37 by stating that the last line about not burning down the house is not part of the traditional story. "Not burning down the house is in reference to the attack on the US Diplomatic Consulate in Benghazi. The attackers set fire to it."
I really don’t know why you insist on doing this to yourself, but fine – have it your way. The part of your post that I actually commented on that illustrated the claims and arguments made in the paras that immediately preceded it you actually put there for reasons entirely unconnected to those preceding paras. I guess the next time you post some claims and follow them with an illustrative story I’ll have to check with you first whether you actually intended the story to have anything to do with the claims it illustrated in the preceding paras.
Will that do?
As I said you will have to check with the school as to why they suspended the teacher and the timeline of how the decision unfolded.
That’s not what you said. What you said concerned what happens if a
policy is applicable (“The policy I was referring to was the school's policy on what happens when a complaint is made against a teacher.”) I was just explaining to you that it’s entirely possible that there isn’t a school policy involved at all – just a pragmatic response to the risk of violence from thugs who would take the law into their own hands. The policy part is your assumption.
A question which I did not evade - in case you are having trouble reading my answer was in #42 where I said "I think in the real world it depends on the situation and potential consequences. Tact, diplomacy, protecting bigger interests will influence the decision on a case by case basis I imagine. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valour as the saying goes."
That’s just a repeat of the same evasion. Again, the question is: “Do you agree that the right to freedom of speech is always more important than the right not to be offended?”. It’s a binary question (because the “always” is a categoric) – the only cogent answers are “yes” or “no”. The “it depends” reply also means “no”. So what you’re telling us is that in your view the right to freedom of speech is
not always more important than the right not to be offended. Fine – if that’s your position so be it. I’d find it hard to disagree with you more about that, but at least we now know what your position is.
What I was trying to say was exactly what I said. I've reminded you before that people tend to ignore your need to have people respond with the script you seem to want to write out for them.
But exactly what you said was a circumlocution around the answer “no”. That’s ok though – now we know the answer to be “no” so we can move on to try to find out why you think that.
Unless you can think of another interpretation of my response #47 where I said "I agree with free speech but disagree it is some sort of absolute blanket right to cause offence. The reason why is....."
Aw, now you’re back peddling again. Let’s stick instead with the closest you’ve come to clarity so far though – that you don’t agree with the statement “the right to free speech is always more important than the right not to be offended”. Call that a “blanket” right if you like, but it’s the same thing: “there is no amount of offence that could be taken that would justify the banning of expressing the statement, image etc that caused it” is the position you’re now disagreeing with right?
Based on what has happened in the recent past in various countries such as the banning of the use of the word "nigger" or banning Holocaust denial https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54509975 I would echo what Zuckerberg wrote. I think that people will "struggle with the tension" between free speech and banning such posts and each person will arrive at what they think "is the right balance".
No doubt, but to get back to the question I asked
you: what should happen when someone thinks the offence they take at a comment, picture etc should justify the banning of the expression of it? This is what I’m actually asking you, Gabriella – not Zuckerberg, not anyone else.
In your opinion should such a person’s degree of offence taken ever justify the banning of the right to express whatever caused the offence to be taken? Please try to remember here that “it depends” also means “yes”.
Because I've thought about the various consequences and have decided that the "right balance" is in a different place from you and would want to approach it on a case by case basis.
So you now seem to think that the consequences – murdering a Danish cartoonist for example – can justify banning the freedom to express the idea at which the offence was taken? Well, in the short term I can see some expediency in that. Provided enough murderous Muslim (or any other type of) thugs threaten to tool up and take the law into their own hands, it’s probably safer not to take the risk right?
Here’s the thing though – is that really the type of society you want to be part of? Ideas suppressed because of the threats of violence if they’re expressed rather than allowed to fight their corner on the basis of debate and argument and evidence? It seems to me that that kind of society would in the longer run be a much more dangerous, impoverished, dispirited one than a society where freedom of speech always trumps offence taken at its expression.
I’m surprised that you don’t think that too by the way, but then again…
