Comments on: Freedom of Speech and People’s Feelings http://henrysthreads.com/2007/04/freedom-of-speech-and-peoples-feelings/ Thoughts on Religion in the World from a passionate, moderate, liberal charismatic Christian Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:55:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Threads from Henry’s Web » Blog Archive » Salman Rushdie Knighted / Violent Reaction in Muslim World http://henrysthreads.com/2007/04/freedom-of-speech-and-peoples-feelings/comment-page-1/#comment-50485 Threads from Henry’s Web » Blog Archive » Salman Rushdie Knighted / Violent Reaction in Muslim World Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:01:55 +0000 http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=667#comment-50485 [...] we must also not allow a desire to be fair to keep us from recognizing evil when we see it. The reaction to the Danish cartoons was evil, and so is this. We in the west should not be intimidated by threats of violence. The [...] [...] we must also not allow a desire to be fair to keep us from recognizing evil when we see it. The reaction to the Danish cartoons was evil, and so is this. We in the west should not be intimidated by threats of violence. The [...]

]]> By: DannyG http://henrysthreads.com/2007/04/freedom-of-speech-and-peoples-feelings/comment-page-1/#comment-37148 DannyG Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:40:24 +0000 http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=667#comment-37148 I notice nowhere in the Constitution is there a right to not be offended. I am confronted with material that I consider offensive hourly just watching TV or listenening to the radio. I could either wast my time protesting each one or I can just blow them off, and take note of what sponsors not to support. Most of those who are "offended" need to grow up. The old children's rhyme about sticks and stones is true, and it is when you react emotionally that those who intentionally offend win. I notice nowhere in the Constitution is there a right to not be offended. I am confronted with material that I consider offensive hourly just watching TV or listenening to the radio. I could either wast my time protesting each one or I can just blow them off, and take note of what sponsors not to support. Most of those who are “offended” need to grow up. The old children’s rhyme about sticks and stones is true, and it is when you react emotionally that those who intentionally offend win.

]]> By: Oloryn http://henrysthreads.com/2007/04/freedom-of-speech-and-peoples-feelings/comment-page-1/#comment-36870 Oloryn Sun, 15 Apr 2007 03:08:34 +0000 http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=667#comment-36870 Oh, drat, I used a <b> where I should have used a <br>. Makes me with your comments had previews.

That should be

Don’t be excessively offensiveDon’t be easily offended

]]> By: Oloryn http://henrysthreads.com/2007/04/freedom-of-speech-and-peoples-feelings/comment-page-1/#comment-36869 Oloryn Sun, 15 Apr 2007 03:04:48 +0000 http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=667#comment-36869 I once ran across an Isaac Asimov quote that basically went <blockquote><i>What we really need is less sensitivity</i></blockquote> I think he's got a point. The way the 'sensitivity' bit is usually done is very one-sided, and lends itself to 'rule by the thin-skinned'. The old Fidonet BBS network seemed to have the right idea; the basic rule in Fidonet was: <blockquote>Don't be excessively annoying<b>Don't be easily annoyed</i></blockquote> I think we need a similar pair on the 'sensitivity' front: <blockquote><i>Don't be excessively offensive<b>Don't be easily offended</i></blockquote> Having the first without the second is unbalanced, and seems to lead to what I can only describe as a 'secular phariseeism', with an overwhelming number of rules that have to be followed to avoid tripping over 'offensiveness' snares. What I would see as really useful would be a counterpoint to 'sensitivity classes'; 'insensitivity classes' that stress giving people the benefit of the doubt rather than jumping on the merest possibility that something might possibly be able to be interpreted as 'offensive'. I once ran across an Isaac Asimov quote that basically went

What we really need is less sensitivity

I think he’s got a point. The way the ’sensitivity’ bit is usually done is very one-sided, and lends itself to ‘rule by the thin-skinned’. The old Fidonet BBS network seemed to have the right idea; the basic rule in Fidonet was:

Don’t be excessively annoyingDon’t be easily annoyed

I think we need a similar pair on the ’sensitivity’ front:

Don’t be excessively offensiveDon’t be easily offended

Having the first without the second is unbalanced, and seems to lead to what I can only describe as a ’secular phariseeism’, with an overwhelming number of rules that have to be followed to avoid tripping over ‘offensiveness’ snares.

What I would see as really useful would be a counterpoint to ’sensitivity classes’; ‘insensitivity classes’ that stress giving people the benefit of the doubt rather than jumping on the merest possibility that something might possibly be able to be interpreted as ‘offensive’.

]]> By: alex http://henrysthreads.com/2007/04/freedom-of-speech-and-peoples-feelings/comment-page-1/#comment-36686 alex Fri, 13 Apr 2007 16:41:39 +0000 http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=667#comment-36686 hi nice site. hi nice site.

]]> By: Kievas Fargo http://henrysthreads.com/2007/04/freedom-of-speech-and-peoples-feelings/comment-page-1/#comment-36561 Kievas Fargo Thu, 12 Apr 2007 21:32:48 +0000 http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=667#comment-36561 I was going to comment but ended up posting it on <a href="http://kievasfargo.blogspot.com/2007/04/freedom-of-speech-at-what-price.html" rel="nofollow">my blog</a> instead. I was going to comment but ended up posting it on my blog instead.

]]> By: Henry Neufeld http://henrysthreads.com/2007/04/freedom-of-speech-and-peoples-feelings/comment-page-1/#comment-36498 Henry Neufeld Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:59:31 +0000 http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=667#comment-36498 I agree with you completely, and I made precisely that point in my post <a href="http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=648" rel="nofollow">Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007</a>, in which I pointed out that TVC had failed to draw the distinction. In that bill <em>violent acts</em> are singled out, and that is a very important distinction. I agree with you completely, and I made precisely that point in my post Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, in which I pointed out that TVC had failed to draw the distinction. In that bill violent acts are singled out, and that is a very important distinction.

]]> By: dopderbeck http://henrysthreads.com/2007/04/freedom-of-speech-and-peoples-feelings/comment-page-1/#comment-36497 dopderbeck Thu, 12 Apr 2007 15:48:26 +0000 http://www.energionpubs.com/wordpress/?p=667#comment-36497 You make a good point about hate crimes laws that are directly merely at speech. However, most such laws are not so directed. Usually, they involve increased penalties for violent crimes committed with animus against the victim based on race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. A clear distinction needs to be drawn here because many Christian conservative lobbying organizations confuse the categories. I've written recently about this on my site: http://tgdarkly.com/blog/?p=527 You make a good point about hate crimes laws that are directly merely at speech. However, most such laws are not so directed. Usually, they involve increased penalties for violent crimes committed with animus against the victim based on race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. A clear distinction needs to be drawn here because many Christian conservative lobbying organizations confuse the categories. I’ve written recently about this on my site: http://tgdarkly.com/blog/?p=527

]]>