Go back
'Human dignity comes before freedom of speech...

'Human dignity comes before freedom of speech...

Debates

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by dottewell
Arguably it's not art. Or music.
Heh, I thought the same thing. But deciding what's art & what's not is an even bigger pain in the Aristotle.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by dottewell
Arguably it's not art. Or music.
'Arguably' being the problem.

My only point is that these things ain't absolute.

There is always going to be a line, and that line might be different in different cultures, and it might change with time within each culture.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Have you been Locke'd up again?

Mebbe the context ain't clear...A group of Muslims obtained an urgent court interdict to prevent the publication of certain Danish cartoons in a South African rag whose circulation has hitherto been maintained by stories cut and pasted from ananova.com. Quoth the judge, "'Human dignity comes before freedom of speech" ...[text shortened]...
Of course the question is where to draw the line, or Mother Grundy will have a field day.
Human dignity...

Who exhibits less respect for human dignity: the creator of such a cartoon (no matter how offensive) or those who burn embassies for the sake of "honour".

It's a clear example of the tribe sentiment that abounds in Middle East countries. Whole countries are being blamed in a completely disproportionate response to, arguably, an excess of an editor.

I don't care how bad the cartoons are, no muslim will get any sympathy from me unless he is also overtly against such responses.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Palynka
Human dignity...

Who exhibits less respect for human dignity: the creator of such a cartoon (no matter how offensive) or those who burn embassies for the sake of "honour".

It's a clear example of the tribe sentiment that abounds in Middle East countries. Whole countries are being blamed in a completely disproportionate response to, arguably, an excess e, no muslim will get any sympathy from me unless he is also overtly against such responses.
Someone else justifying a wrongdoing by claiming that victims of that wrongdoing later did something worse.

And/or claiming that other victims who did not later do something worse are still blameworthy, because they share a religion with the extremists who did the something worse.

They can be "pardoned" if and only if EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM COMES ROUND TO MY HOUSE AND BEGS FOR MY CHRISTIAN FORGIVENESS.

What are they teaching in our schools these days?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by dottewell
And/or claiming that other victims who did not later do something worse are still blameworthy, because they share a religion with the extremists who did the something worse.

They can be "pardoned" if and only if EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM COMES ROUND TO MY HOUSE AND BEGS FOR MY CHRISTIAN FORGIVENESS.
Read again. I said none of that.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Palynka
Read again. I said none of that.
So why won't any Muslim get your sympathy unless blah blah blah?

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by dottewell
So why won't any Muslim get your sympathy?
All sensible ones will. Read the whole sentence.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Palynka
All sensible ones will. Read the whole sentence.
Yes. I keep getting to "overtly" and wondering why you put it in.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
....... If the cartoons had ridiculed

Of course the question is where to draw the line, or Mother Grundy will have a field day.
I would hate to nag the boss, but have you deleted a juicy bit from this post in a sterling example of self control to avoid impugning some humans dignity.

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by kmax87
I would hate to nag the boss, but have you deleted a juicy bit from this post in a sterling example of self control to avoid impugning some humans dignity.
As if the people in this forum have any dignity to impugn.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
As if the people in this forum have any dignity to impugn.
HAH! LOL 😛😀😏

Vote Up
Vote Down

From what i've been able to gather, the US founding fathers were spilt on the inclusion of the rights to a free press. The ingenious argument put forward against codeifying the rights were that it implied that government actually could exert control over the presses, and some were of the opinion that English common law adequately protected the rights of anyone to freely publish their ideas.

The press by being the property of private interests, are simply reflections of the owners opinions anyway, so the thought that having free speech as law would actually produce that was actually viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism 200 odd years a long time ago in the west.

2 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

The democratic Right to Free Speech does NOT entail the "right" to verbally abuse, insult and degrade people. There is no such "right". To insult and degrade people is a form of verbal violence. It has no place in a civilised, tolerant society. The human person possesses dignity and is to be valued as an end in himself. The dignity of and the respect for the human person should be at the core of our universal values.

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by ivanhoe
The democratic Right to Free Speech does NOT entail the "right" to verbally abuse, insult and degrade people. There is no such "right". To insult and degrade people is a form of verbal violence. It has no place in a civilised, tolerant society. The human person possesses dignity and is to be valued as an end in himself. The dignity of and the respect for the human person should be at the core of our universal values.
I hope it does not take away the time honoured aussie tradition of taking the piss.😉

Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by kmax87
I hope it does not take away the time honoured aussie tradition of taking the piss.
Where are you taking it this time?