Thee wise monkeys._rynFebruary 12 2009, 02:14:57 UTC
There are people in the world who loose sleep at night over people like me thinking abortion is ok, or supporting stem cell research. Those people are probably just as distressed by my views as I am by theirs, and would consider mine just as potentially damaging to the general public if I were given space in the papers. So I just accept that if I want to share my views, I have to take it when someone upsets or offends me. I might be baffled and enraged sometimes, but it's very likely that they are too. We're all just people.
Another side of this debate, which came up with the Bill Henson thing, is that I don't think it should be illegal to view child pornography. To make it? Lock 'em up. To buy it? Again, not ok, because you're promoting its continued production. But I cannot get behind any authority telling me what I can't see or hear, whether it's making bombs, raping babies or discussing detention centres. The ability to freely discuss and research things the government / authority doesn't approve of is just too important.
Re: Thee wise monkeys.lillimFebruary 12 2009, 02:31:14 UTC
The 'space in the papers' thing is another point to consider - it's rarely the case that opposing standpoints are given equal access to promotion of their ideas or beliefs.
Whoah. That example in the last paragraph. I need to give it a bit of serious consideration before replying, I think :)
Re: Thee wise monkeys.matokoFebruary 12 2009, 02:44:21 UTC
There's some very interesting academia on the framing of issues in newspapers and who is given authority to respond or take part in public debate. I'll see if I can find the game of the authors.
Freedom of speech is a tricky one. Yes, I believe that everyone should have freedom of speech, but with that comes huge responsibility on each individual. I also believe in the anti-vilification laws, so; say what you please, but be prepared to be prosecuted if you use that speech to vilify, incite or condone hate crimes etc.
I suppose I was looking at it in terms of tolerance of the differences between people. Not that it's more acceptable to repress opinions, but that there's likely to be more logical basis for intolerance or dislike. You can hold people responsible for their opinions. I personally don't maintain friendships with people if they turn out to be racist, because I think that's a choice people make, and I'm uncomfortable with it. They're absolutely free to say and think what they like, but on the basis of strongly disagreeing with the reasoning behind such sentiments, I choose not to associate with people who consider that reasoning legitimate. In the same way, I can respect that some people would be legitimately horrified by my opinions of stem-cell research, because they don't value my method of reasoning or the priorities that direct it. I don't mind that. But I can't respect someone for thinking less of me because I'm female, nor would I think less of someone for being gay or black
( ... )
Comments 26
Another side of this debate, which came up with the Bill Henson thing, is that I don't think it should be illegal to view child pornography. To make it? Lock 'em up. To buy it? Again, not ok, because you're promoting its continued production. But I cannot get behind any authority telling me what I can't see or hear, whether it's making bombs, raping babies or discussing detention centres. The ability to freely discuss and research things the government / authority doesn't approve of is just too important.
Reply
Whoah. That example in the last paragraph. I need to give it a bit of serious consideration before replying, I think :)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
If i was going to be even more contentious, Id bring up freedom of the presses, too.
Reply
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Excuse my ignorance, its not something I read about really.
On the other hand, does freedom of "speech" apply to things like the Cartoon of Mohammad the prophet?
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment