Danish Cartoons and Islam: Context and Backstory | 153 comments (153 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Well Jerome (4.00 / 2)

But freedom of speech comes down to one issue: Do we, or do we not, have the right to say and do what we want, provided we don't violate the rights of others?

There is freedom to and freedom from. A lot of ink has been spilled by philosophers of ethics on the need to recognize both. There is such a thing as the right to dignity, self-image, etc... Hurling slurs is not an exercise of free speech that doesn't violate the rights of others. People have some right to go about their business without having to endure offensive language. Then again, the US constitution protects freedomof speech only, but (for example) the Spanish constitution has

Section 18
(1) The right to honour, to personal and family privacy and to the own image is guaranteed.

Section 20
(1) The following rights are recognized and protected:
a) the right to freely express and spread thoughts, ideas and opinions through words, in writing or by any other means of reproduction;
...
(2) The exercise of these rights may not be restricted by any form of prior censorship.
...
(4) These freedoms are limited by respect for the rights recognized in this Part, by the legal provisions implementing it, and especially by the right to honour, to privacy, to the own image and to the protection of youth and childhood.

There you have it. Now tell me the Spanish constitution is illiberal and backwards for not putting freedom of speech above every other consideration.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Feb 6th, 2006 at 06:04:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well Jerome (4.00 / 3)

This is not, in and of itself, illiberal, but it most certainly lays the groundwork for very illiberal causes. No one has the right to silence others because they find words offensive. What's to stop a Republican from demanding that I be arrested if I state my view that the Republican Party is made up of fascists, pseudo-libertarians, and pseudo-Christian sociopaths?

If I say that communism and anarcho-capitalism are the foolish ideas of vicious ideologues with the brain capacity of a AAA battery (e.g., Lenin, Rothbard, etc.), have I violated the honor of communists and anarcho-capitalists sufficiently to warrant arrest and trial?

Your freedom from offensive language results from your having the ability to walk away. Just. walk. away. If we punish everyone who says something that some other person finds offensive, we're all going to spend time in jail. It's too subjective and, as laws go, quite ridiculous. When something offends me, I walk away, or change the channel, or pick up a different newspaper or magazine. It's not very difficult. I don't demand that the government come to rescue me.

The right to "honor"? If people allow their honor to be damaged by some stupid cartoon in a newspaper, they're overly-emotional and need to seriously evaluate their beliefs, because, frankly, if your faith is so correct, in your mind, the words of a cartoonist shouldn't matter.

Offensive language, or cartoons, is not a violation of anyone's privacy, unless that person forces his way into your home to do so, at which point the crime goes well-beyond offensive language. This is the kind of law that leads to morons like Hillary Clinton and Lynn Cheney being allowed to wage a war on silly crap like video games, instead of doing the right thing by telling parents to stop buying them. "Oh, no! My kids are playing Super Mario Brothers, and Mario just jumped on a Bad Guy to kill it! Save me, Dubya! We must smite the evil Nintendo!"

Considering the potential secondary effects -- always the killer in public policy -- I would argue that, yes, this is an illiberal law. How has the law been applied?

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Mon Feb 6th, 2006 at 01:03:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well Jerome (none / 0)

I find this irksome.

Your freedom from offensive language results from your having the ability to walk away. Just. walk. away.

Maybe we need a discussion of positive and negative liberty, but this diary is not the place for it.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Feb 6th, 2006 at 01:25:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well Jerome (4.00 / 6)

A lot of people in the pan-Arab world would like to walk away, just walk away, from Anglo/US occupation, from repressive regimes, from poverty, etc. Or they would very much like the occupiers to walk away, just walk away, from the occupied countries. But they don't have that option. The nations that do the occupying, and the taunting and insulting and self-congratulatory preaching about Freedom, have no intention of walking away or even bothering to count their victims, and they have the brute force to back up their intransigence.

The first freedom is the freedom to say No.

I don't know whence comes this idyllic vision of a vast level playing field peopled exclusively by rational actors with infinite freedom of choice, but it doesn't much resemble the planet that I grew up on...

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Mon Feb 6th, 2006 at 05:06:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well Jerome (none / 0)

Thatks, DeAnander, for finding the words that I could not.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Feb 6th, 2006 at 05:08:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well Jerome (4.00 / 2)

A lot of people in the pan-Arab world would like to walk away, just walk away, from Anglo/US occupation, from repressive regimes, from poverty, etc. Or they would very much like the occupiers to walk away, just walk away, from the occupied countries.

Last I looked, only one country in the region was under what can by any stretch of the term be called Anglo/US occupation.

The world's northernmost desert wind.

by Sirocco (sirocco2005ATgmail.com) on Mon Feb 6th, 2006 at 05:20:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well Jerome (none / 0)

The rest of them are under oppressive regimes which are clients of the US, or officiel enemies of the US to which the US subcontracts torture, and there is one region under occupation by a client of the US.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Feb 6th, 2006 at 05:25:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well Jerome (4.00 / 3)

I'd like to say I'm planning to respond in an adult way to this, but, really, I'm just pissed off.

As is increasingly becoming the case with you, DeAnander, you didn't address my point (just as you routinely failed to address my point in the Wal-Mart thread, instead relying on emotion and attack, in that case), which was addressed specifically to the controversy over the cartoons. I suspect you would find that you and I are in at least near-full agreement about US involvement in the Middle East (and South America, and Central America, and so on). I'll leave the issue of Anglo involvement to the Britons here.

I also appreciate the generalization about "the nation" -- not the Republicans, or the neocons, or the Bushies -- having no intention of walking away or "even bothering to count their victims". Nevermind the 48% of Americans who voted for John Kerry. Nevermind those of us who opposed this war from the beginning, and who spent endless hours doing everything we could to stop Bush from winning a second term. It's the whole damned nation. We're all a bunch of blood-spilling sociopaths, aren't we?

Unbelievable.

Nothing would make me happier than to see America rid itself of involvement with the current governments in the Middle East, whether Saudi Arabia, or Syria, or Israel, or whatever. Not one of those governments is worth a dime to me. Don't drag me down because of the actions of people I've worked to stop. You're more than welcome to call things as you see them, but don't throw out broad statements about Americans' views and attitudes and expect me to not respond by saying that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Mon Feb 6th, 2006 at 08:44:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well Jerome (none / 1)

see, people do get angry when you generalise about their nation or religion... just don't burn my embassy, OK? :-)

more seriously...

afaik Kerry has not once repudiated the invasion of Iraq, but has only claimed that he would have done it better. ditto that beacon of Democratic hopes, H R Clinton. when the Dems identify themselves as the anti-war party, then the world at large will perceive America as a divided country; but the narrative of American media and the political spin of the major players is that the anti-war contingent is a tiny fringe of marginalised malcontent lefties who show up at ANSWER events. (this is of course not accurate, as I've been to those events and seen the broad spectrum of ages and political plumage there -- and it ignores critics from the Right like PC Roberts and J Raimondo -- but it's how things are spun by the media machinery.)

I live and work in the US and have for many years. I did everything within my small power to stop the invasion of Iraq -- I also decried and protested the US' earlier buddy-buddy-ness with Saddam 20 years ago, as it happens. nevertheless I do personally benefit from the policies of Empire, as well as personally paying for them and experiencing some disbenefits. I pay taxes to this government, instead of taking the path of conscience and becoming a tax resister. in my view, I share the responsibility -- even though I am not a US citizen -- much as a moderate Muslim who donates money to a group whose radical cadres carry out violent or extremist actions shares some responsibility for their actions. at least that is mho.

and though metacomment is seldom productive... gingerly I venture to wonder when or where I ever said that I expected anyone not to respond? when I assert a strong opinion I expect a certain number of people to disagree with me. that's just life.

you do seem to be getting a bit riled here, which concerns me as the tone of debate at ET is generally civil even when strained. if you're allergic to my style as an essayist, or you're angry because I don't conform to some "rules of debate" that you would like to enforce, well... to quote an earlier meme, why not just walk away :-) in any public bar or cafe, there are going to be people you like and people you don't, people you enjoy and people you find boring or irritating. that's also just life. why waste it getting personally angry with ascii characters on a screen? just my $.02 ...

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Tue Feb 7th, 2006 at 04:51:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Danish Cartoons and Islam: Context and Backstory | 153 comments (153 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Top Diaries

What's Next, After the Slam?

Struggle NWO Unipolar or Multilateralism

City Agriculture - March 17, 2023

Shock Election Loss Rutte IV In Senate Race

Honduras Establishes Close Ties with China

A Return to Normalcy?

A Grand Slam for Ireland?

Recent Diaries

KS: Barrister, Judge, Prison Warden, Assassin

History Hillsdale College, Alumni and Domestic Terror

Struggle NWO Unipolar or Multilateralism

Neo-Nazi Marches Across Europe

Fascism Unites America, Israel and EU Neo-Nazis

What's Next, After the Slam?

Settler Extremism Blessed by Jerusalem Leaders

US Interference In Lebanon-Syria-Ira
q

City Agriculture - March 17, 2023

Shock Election Loss Rutte IV In Senate Race

Stalemate Endures, Pessimism Grows, Deaths Mount

Honduras Establishes Close Ties with China

A Grand Slam for Ireland?

Living In Spain and Social-Democracy

USA Censorship Act to Kill Disinformation

Flying Fortresses and Nuclear Threat

Universal Criticism Asylum Threshold EU Fortress

China Trade and Relations

SBU As a Terror Network

A Return to Normalcy?

Occasional Series