Does one have a right to 'not be offended'?

[Introcluse]

IMHO offense should not be a reason to justify censorship, as offense is such a subjective internal experience it is impractical to base a formula on it.

In the UK we've now fostered a culture that almost begs people to take offence and so they do. We can't go a few days without a media outcry and offence taken over something trivial, and this plays right into the hands of those with a vested interest in perpetuating racial/political divisions.

People miss the point, human rights are to protect the individual not the mob, individuals have a right to express themselves however they want, the mob can't be used as a tool to snowball censorship because the mob is offended. Individuals need protection from the mob, the mob does not need protection from the individual.

It was OK not to give women a right to vote, it was ok not to give blacks a right to vote, because the mob felt they didn't deserve it and were not fit and found it offensive for women and blacks to have these rights. No matter how offensive someone finds someone to be they have a right to be offensive, that's a basic human right.

So should creating offense ever be a justification to censor?

[Djoser]

With Freedom of Speech, you will hear things you don't want to hear. This goes with other freedoms.

[1871]

Depends. I could call djoser a muthafukking slime piece of shit.
A slimy gangrenousridden hole. A turd munching worm sucking PONCE.
He might be offended by that. Then again he might not be.
Then I could write a polite letter to Younes and tell him to stick a knife into djosers oily fat gut.
And he might act on that and stick a knife into djosers oily fat gut.
That would be inciting hatred. Is this wrong? Either way you could say that theres a result - just that one is more effective than the other - but it has consequences. http://www.google.com/imgres?q=party+tim...,s:0,i:135

So should I be held accountable for what I have said? Who would have the right to blame me? Anyone? What about when djoser is lying in the morgue and Laz is at the door weeping?
What about his feelings? etc

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=who+gives...1,s:0,i:83

[Djoser]

Hey, I only lie in church! You pruned-up cunt flap.

But 1871 is right. I can break into his house...oh wait, he's too broke to afford one.

I can run up on 1871 in that muddy alley he lives in and call him a decaying bitchmade lactose spewing pus bleeder and then call him a shitfaced assmunching mutt that lives on burning piss of chlamydia victims. Then, whenever 1871 can get a phone, i can leave him a voicemail saying he's a neuron deprived heap of dying flesh that makes Margaret Thatcher look like she has more life than an AIDS infant.

Sure, 1871 may want to very very fortunately kill himself by actually giving in to age or jumping in front of a Ford Model T since no one cares how he feels. but am I responsible? Fuck no. Cunts get no love.

[Asshole]

i think as a community we have to dictate a few boundaries. no fascist organization, no public hate speech, no public dishonesty, etc.

[YaelTheGreat]

Freedom of speech is great, until its hateful and with no reasoning. A 'mob'- a collection of concerned people's- decides to fight back against hateful speech, then that is also freedom of speech. If your freedom of sppech is used to supress someone else's, or if you freedom of speech causes harm to someone else, then you need to shut the fuck up.

[Introcluse]

I think the line should be set at when speech leads to 'freedom of action' ie saying something which will encourage a violent action against a particular social group ie if I say "you should beat up white people", this is inciting violence against a person based on their identity. Where as if I say "the ku klux klan is a white supremacist group" I'm criticising an ideology, but not instructing anyone to attack white people on the basis of them being white.

this idiom is appropriate:

"sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"

[Younes]

Problem is that messages and so on are received and understood differently, some might inspire even though it doesn't directly incite violence and so on. So this moves in to a grey area aswell.

[simonheros]

Well "freedom" is really controversial.

See people have the Freedom of Speech,but people abuse it for unintended purposes. Over all the whole idea that you have freedom to speak and do whatever, plays right into what you think.

(04-09-2012 06:47 AM)Introcluse Wrote:  So should creating offense ever be a justification to censor?

Depending. I honestly think as long as it's not discriminated for something stupid like someone's race yes. But there's always a loop hole that backfires on things like this.

[1871]

The only loop hole round here is Just Jim crawling up djosers ARSEHOLE.

Quote:Djoser

....but am I responsible? Fuck no. Cunts get no love.

As the skanks youve dated have all told me.

Quote:Introcluse

I think the line should be set at when speech leads to 'freedom of action' ie saying something which will encourage a violent action against a particular social group ie if I say "you should beat up white people", this is inciting violence against a person based on their identity. Where as if I say "the ku klux klan is a white supremacist group" I'm criticising an ideology, but not instructing anyone to attack white people on the basis of them being white.

this idiom is appropriate:

"sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"

Admit it Introcluse – you spilt bleach on your hijab and now youre thinking ofgoing the whole hog and joining the kkk.

[Djoser]

I'm a pimp, son. I don't "date".

You're just mad Just Jim isn't crawling up yours since your arse usually houses dickheads.

Get at me, 1871.

[1871]

yeh yeh you and your hoe



no wonder youre seeing fuschias on your goddamn ceiling