1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Offense! and the law

Discussion in 'The Political World' started by Brickjectivity, Aug 19, 2019.

?
  1. There are dangerous ideas which ought to be suppressed and never spoken.

    1 vote(s)
    6.3%
  2. There are dangerous usages which ought to be illegal, limited or censored.

    3 vote(s)
    18.8%
  3. There should be a legal responsibility not to offend in some cases.

    2 vote(s)
    12.5%
  4. We are responsible for the impact of our words.

    10 vote(s)
    62.5%
  5. Pornography should be censored.

    1 vote(s)
    6.3%
  6. Religions should be protected from offensive criticism in some cases.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  7. In some cases violent actions should not be depicted or described.

    3 vote(s)
    18.8%
  8. I would disagree with censorship except that children should be protected.

    6 vote(s)
    37.5%
  9. Brickjectivity should decide what is or is not to be censored.

    2 vote(s)
    12.5%
  10. Sunstone should decide what is or is not to be censored.

    2 vote(s)
    12.5%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity Veteran Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    25,643
    Ratings:
    +8,096
    Religion:
    Liberal Christian
    For your amusement and chagrin I post here a linked video that argues the importance of controlled responses to offenses and that big responses are usually unnecessary. It goes into several examples of authorities trying to defend the honor of leaders and to protect them from words and pictures. Mentions that translation of scripture has been deemed offensive. Tyndale was burned at the state for his translation.

    Opens by arguing that hurt feelings do not indicate a wrong necessarily: gives 3 examples

    Introduced terms:
    • Second-order punishment -- the punishing of those who refuse to be offended.
    • Pluralistic ignorance coined by Steven Pinker Video compares to "The Emperor's New Clothes" effect.
    Sticks and stones versus words. Do bad words justify violent actions? "Your mum."



    Presentation concludes: Either articulate the reasons for offense rather than simply reacting, or become a prisoner of your own reaction. You have the right to hear other opinions. Argues no one has the right not-to-feel offended.


     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  2. Estro Felino

    Estro Felino Believer in free will
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2014
    Messages:
    10,191
    Ratings:
    +2,863
    Religion:
    Pelagianism
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. A Vestigial Mote

    A Vestigial Mote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    4,190
    Ratings:
    +2,651
    Religion:
    ?
    Great video. I think a lot of people need to come to the types of understanding and engage in the kind of examinations of ideas that the video espouses itself with. I am constantly trying to ground my kids in the idea that offensive words cannot hurt you, at all, like a punch to the face does. There is simply no comparison. You get to choose whether or not to be "hurt" by offensive words directed toward you. You do not get to choose whether or not a punch to the face hurts. And therefore, it makes no sense at all to react to an offensive word(s) with any sort of violence. And yes, I do see it as an exposition of complete and utter weakness to be the one caught doing so.
     
  4. Labourwave

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2015
    Messages:
    4,508
    Ratings:
    +3,447
    Deliberate spreading of misinformation should be illegal. Same with anti-semetism, racism and other hate speech.
     
  5. Labourwave

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2015
    Messages:
    4,508
    Ratings:
    +3,447
    That said, there are many countries which do push their own agendas and call opposition to it "hate speech". For example, in many countries in the world such as Canada, being an "anti-zionist" or advocating for "anti-zionism" amounts to anti-semetism. Which is nothing more than political opportunism which must be thoroughly criticized and revoked.
     
  6. A Vestigial Mote

    A Vestigial Mote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    4,190
    Ratings:
    +2,651
    Religion:
    ?
    Spreading misinformation is different from speech that is merely "offensive." The video actually covers this by saying that great care should be taken in defining well the ideas of slander, libel, and other practices that come along with a component of deceit, rather than just provocation of feeling.
     
  7. Labourwave

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2015
    Messages:
    4,508
    Ratings:
    +3,447
    I agree to some extent, but I think there is a sizeable overlap in places.
     
  8. whirlingmerc

    whirlingmerc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2016
    Messages:
    3,909
    Ratings:
    +711
    Religion:
    Christian
    Yes, there is a large amount of in some cases and judgement involved.

    I do believe in protections for children regarding addictive things like exposure to drugs, cigarettes porn....
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. icehorse

    icehorse Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    Messages:
    8,832
    Ratings:
    +4,500
    Religion:
    spiritual anti-theist : )
    Same question I always ask: In your opinion, who do you know who's smart enough to tell YOU what YOU cannot hear?

    I've never heard of a person I'd be comfortable granting that power over me.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. sun rise

    sun rise "Let there be peace and love among all"
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2014
    Messages:
    37,153
    Ratings:
    +13,994
    Religion:
    Love
    I voted yes for these three but two need more explanation:

    There should be a legal responsibility not to offend in some cases. -- The "some cases" to me are the "fire in a crowded theater" situations.

    We are responsible for the impact of our words.

    In some cases violent actions should not be depicted or described. -- We should not encourage copycats. And my "should" is not a legal "should".
     
  11. Labourwave

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2015
    Messages:
    4,508
    Ratings:
    +3,447
    These questions do have correct answers, and leaving them unanaswered because we fear getting it wrong will lead to a similar conclusion.

    Canadian government says anti-zionism is hate speech. That's not going to stop me.
     
  12. icehorse

    icehorse Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    Messages:
    8,832
    Ratings:
    +4,500
    Religion:
    spiritual anti-theist : )
    I'm sorry, I don't understand, can you rephrase that? It seems like you made a logical leap maybe?
     
  13. Nakosis

    Nakosis crystal soldier
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2011
    Messages:
    12,931
    Ratings:
    +4,921
    Religion:
    Atheist Libertarian
    Lies which cause harm already is illegal. I'm fine with that.

    For the rest, I'd prefer to give people the freedom to express themselves. If someone hates me, I'd rather know that up front than to have them act covertly behind my back. Best to know who is against you and who is with you.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
Loading...