Sunday, July 31, 2011

The Civil Right Not To Be Offended

A follow-up to this post by Midnight Rider, from something I will be posting tomorrow at my site:

For a moment, forget the blasphemy issue.

Think about this:
[I]f you post an image intended to distress some...political...group, you too can be sent to jail...
Does that statement apply to political parties? Is it really possible that posting an image offensive to political parties could land someone in jail?

Whatever happened to the tradition of Thomas Nast? In addition to creating images satirizing politics, he created the image of Uncle Sam as well as the Republican Party elephant and the Democratic Party donkey.

Read more about Nast's notable works HERE and his accomplishments HERE, particularly Nast's contribution to the downfall of Boss Tweed, the leader of the corrupt Tammany Hall.

Furthermore, wouldn't Nast's John Chinaman be considered offensive in today's climate of political correctness? See that image below:


Should we now ban the online image of John Chinaman?

With regard to codifying the civil right not to be offended, what about printed words that offend a given group? Should those words, if offensive to a particular group, be forbidden and even prosecutable?

THIS is but one of many examples indicating that being offended is in the eye of the beholder. Obviously, the teacher's being offended was a personal and political choice.

If we codify a civil right not to be offended, we will reach the point that everything we say, write, or post has to be weighed against whether or not somebody else might be offended. At that point, communication will cease.

Reminder about Everybody Draw Mohammed Day: "Molly Norris, Artist Behind 'Everybody Draw Mohammed Day' Cartoon, Goes Into Hiding"

13 comments:

Damien said...

Always on Watch,

I agree with you. I don't understand why so many people in both parties, (at least in Tennessee) at this point, don't understand this. Or do they understand it, and don't care? What is their motivation behind passing such a clearly unconstitutional law?

Damien said...

By the way, didn't Jerry Falwell sue pornographer Larry Flynt, claiming that a satire in his Hustler Magazine caused him emotional distress? Also didn't Larry Flynt win that court case?

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell

BlackbootJack said...

.....and there is this quote from George Orwell (1984)

"Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear."

Damien said...

BlackbootJack,

Sadly, some people in both parties seem to have forgotten that.

Anonymous said...

After reading this article and getting my blood boiling...I had to write a new column on Freedom of speech.
Thanks for the motivation.
www.infideltaskforce.com

D Charles QC said...

I take out my own personal emotions from this issue and look at it in a legalistic manner. When is it freedom of expression and when is it dangerous hate or bigotry.

There are five countries that have actually worked it our, not mine or yours though (UK and US), though it is possible that Gibraltar will enact its own laws as it is allowed to.

The line is drawn when it becomes collective targetting rather than individual. In otherwords, an artist who draws a cartoon of Mohammed and gets it accepted into a newspaper is freedom of expression even though it is mass marketed and that the newspaper ensures a disclaimer that it represents the artist and not the ownership or editorial team.

Now on the other hand, a pamphlet produced by a political party or interest group that publishes such an image and is published by the group itself, is collective targetting and thus over the line.

Disriminatory, bigoted, racist propoganda could thus be targetted as collective hate speech - under the legal definition of hate that most countries have - and yet it would not be able to do so for individuals who express their opinions.

If The Netherlands of Britain had this system, Wilders, the EDL and perhaps even the BNP would be forced to close down, which in my mind is simply fine, AS LONG AS the individual's right to freedom of expression is not. There is no problem on my part someone saying that Islam is Evil, of the Devil or whatever from their own views, that is their right and I have just as much right to think them as bigots and mindless scum, but as soon as it is put in an organised and coordinated fashion, it crosses the line.

D Charles QC said...

Excuse my spelling errors on some of these, my son convinced me and my associates to upgrade our computer system and techno-idiots like myself are now stuck with iPhones, iPads and an Apple Laptop. I like the internet searches and it works fast in the office but if your like me, I sit in a café or on the porch at my home breathing the fresh sea-air but then my mobile connection is slow and typing onto the screen rather than a keyboard is a killer! My connection is actually paid for in Ceuta and is a Moroccan connection - a third the price to what I get here, nice, cheap but slooooow!

Pastorius said...

Damien,

You write: a pamphlet produced by a political party or interest group that publishes such an image and is published by the group itself, is collective targetting and thus over the line.


I respond: I don't think you're going to get Americans to buy off on that. Political parties are not official arms of the government, you know. They are independent entities.

In Britain, when you have elections, you "elect a new government." When we have elections, we do not elect a new government, we elect a President, and Legislators, to be caretakers of the government for a period of time. The government is the Constitution and the Laws.

It may seem a subtle distinction to you, but it is a huge difference in the way we view the world.

Additionally, we believe in Free Market Capitalism and we, just as strongly believe in a Free market of ideas.

Question to you, Damien: Where do we Americans believe our Rights come from?

Epaminondas said...

Hate speech is constitutional.

PERIOD

Any speech which is meant to inspire violence, from which IT CAN BE PROVEN that violence results, is NOT protected speech.

The court has already decided this over the SPLC killing Aryan Nation with this very issue.

It has already been decided,people

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/aryan-nations

Arthur Butz, Kevin McDOnald, the CofCC are all safe in speech, as is the stupid Westbrook Church and the great monor, Terry Jones.

All assholes are protected.

Any UN motion, any state law which goes against this, will have the most dire reaction from americans as they come to understand what is actually being done.

D Charles QC said...

Collective hate does not have to be sourced from government, thus any group that "as a group" publish what is defined legally as hate, would have crossed the line.

To answer your question, I have heard a number of different views on the what is the source of rights, from "The Constitution", the "Will of the People" or simply from "God". I have no problem with all three and actually think they are all right, but then I am a Catholic and a barrister.

The Constitution is the framework that rights, laws and legislation derives from but the Constitution is a living, breathing reflection of the will of the people, of whom we can say bases their will mostly from their faith.

Damien said...

Damien Charles QC,

I do not agree with the notion that constitution, is a living breathing document, that is meant to change with the current attitudes of the people. That is dangerous thinking, as far as I'm concerned. Taken to its logical conclusion, that would make the constitution into a worthless piece of paper, that would do nothing to protect individual rights or limit the size of government.

You could argue that due to the amendment process the constitution is a sort of living, breathing document, but if it is, its an extremely stubborn one and for good reason. Americas founding fathers understood the necessity of being able to make changes to the constitution, because they understood that they did not know everything, and new issues would come up. However, they also understood that if it were too easy to change, the people could just vote rights away by a simply majority. That would be a bad thing.

D Charles QC said...

Damien, I do not disagree with you at all. By its nature a Constution is certainly a stuborn foundation but it can and does change, albiet very slowly. Do not confuse my comment with basic legislation.

What I think would be wrong though is the assumption that the/a Constittuion cannot change and that what it reflected when created is 100 per cent set in concrete and reflects the future. The builders of the US Constution at that time were supporters of Slavery for example and it required a war, a number of Constittuional changes and almost another 100 years before it actually was fully implemented for the people.

For me I am thinking in more than decades if not centuries, but life, poeple, situation and excpectations change and a Constitution ultimately reflects the will of the people of the time - be it the future, even if the people now would not stand for it!

Damien said...

Damien Charles QC,

Than I think I must have misunderstood what you were saying. The truth of the matter is that often when a US supreme court case is unpopular a lot of Americans will now complain that it was contrary to the will of the people. The thing they ignore is that many important, rights affirming supreme court cases actually had very unpopular outcomes. For example Brown VS Board of Education. Most Americans, at least in the south at the time, did not support integration, so it caused a lot of anger. Yet a clear majority of Americans support the courts conclusion today.