Perhaps we do not disagree here. For clarity: I'm not saying the act on the video only causes distress. I think it is considerably more than that. Still I do not say he should be punished or inhibited for this act. I am happy to leave that decision to the French, because he sought the limits of their law.
Dieudonné and the new fascists (part II)
- Thread starter Sumo
- Start date
Maybe you missed an edit? Posting #830 continues after the words you quote. (sorry I tend to use the wrong button for preview)
Do you really believe you have freedom of speech in a free society?
If you work, you know freedom of speech is limited to what the bosses want to hear. If you post on internet forums, you know your freedom to say what you want is limited.
Mescalito
pfm Member
Of course, & I am a reasonable man, and choose to restrain my freedom to speak freely. But that is MY decision, not the state's. This forum is not the state. My workplace is not the state, & both are fully entitled to impose limits on what I do or say. If I don't like it, I can change my job or go to another forum.
Chris
Paul R
pfm Member
I forget what this thread is about now.
But the quenelle is clearly a sign used by racists to indicate their racism. If a footballer uses it in a public place while under the jurisdiction of both his employer and the game licensing body then it could reasonably be seen as bringing the game into disrepute and he could expect to be sanctioned for it.
This is nothing to do with free speech.
Dieudonne is clearly a racist and it would be quite reasonable for theatre owners and the local government bodies with whom they interact not to want their venues to be used by racists.
Again nothing to do with free speech.
Paul
But the quenelle is clearly a sign used by racists to indicate their racism. If a footballer uses it in a public place while under the jurisdiction of both his employer and the game licensing body then it could reasonably be seen as bringing the game into disrepute and he could expect to be sanctioned for it.
This is nothing to do with free speech.
Dieudonne is clearly a racist and it would be quite reasonable for theatre owners and the local government bodies with whom they interact not to want their venues to be used by racists.
Again nothing to do with free speech.
Paul
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
OK, I didn't see the edit. But your clarification doesn't clarify your point (to me, at any rate). A violent action is a violent action. Causing distress through speech, performance, writing or other means is not 'a violent action'; making a video is not 'a violent action' unless you physically injure someone in the course of filming.
As is the state entitled to impose limits, therefore, since both workplaces and forums operate within society and are governed by the state's laws.
Mescalito
pfm Member
Not if the state purports to be a free society and espouses the principle of freedom of speech.
Any limit on freedom of speech and expression erodes at a free nation's right to call itself free.
Chris
Most people who insist on "freedom of speech" in this thread seem totally inarticulate about the distinction between speech and other actions, until you give them a weird case. Then they suddenly know for sure ("oh, but that is different") without specifying the criteria. Fortunately it doesn't work that way IRL because politics and laws make the criteria explicit, intelligible, and debatable.
You are completely circular here. I do not know your criteria, you merely stipulate that you can tell which is which. See preceding post.
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
AFAIK only the USA has freedom of speech enshrined in its Constitution. Certainly we in the UK have historically had far greater restrictions in place (eg laws on blasphemy, pornography, as well as very restrictive laws on defamation) so if any UK government has declared itself in favour of 'free speech' it can only have done so hypocritically or ironically.
Joe Hutch
Mate of the bloke
My criteria are straightforward. An action is an action: making a film is an action. A violent action is an action that involves violence: punching someone in the face is a violent action. You are seeking to conflate the two, so that an action becomes a violent action, even if no violence is involved.
Circular as ever. You can't think of anything that would approach your preconceived but undefined limits and challenge them?
(In case you didn't notice, this is the kind of thing that extremists tend to do a lot.)
Mescalito
pfm Member
The whole point is that it is not about challenging an individual's criteria. People should be free to cause extreme offence & outrage by their utterances.
Chris
The whole point is that the boundaries set by law are decided by people.
Daniel Quinn
Banned
Whilst he was in my opinion out of order , I am curious as to how the above statement fits in to your successful attempt to censor damock ?
Mescalito
pfm Member
Oh, perfectly straightforward, Gerald. Do as I do, not as I say. This is a piss willy little forum, with Tony & the Mods (brilliant name for a band!) acting as the state, in this case a benign dictatorship. I reported someone's behaviour because it caused me offence. IMHO, the mods should have ignored my report & told me to grow a pair.
Had it been out in the real world, & the state had muzzled someone whose behaviour had upset or insulted me, I'd have howled in protest.
Chris
Daniel Quinn
Banned
Fair enough , I am perturbed as to how someone with a vociferous world view is prepared to ditch it for their own selfish interests so readily . Each to their own , but I try to live by what I believe otherwise what's the point in believing it in the first place .