Freedom of Speech? For who?

[JohnB]

From this mornings paper. Link.

 

So it's the students "Freedom of Speech" to have a PhD paper on "Laughing at the Disabled" but those who object are suspended for 6 months without pay for objecting to it?

On YouTube, Dr Hookham said he was "deeply offended" at two disabled men being set up on film – part of the thesis – to be ridiculed and mocked.

Obviously the student is expecting a pass but personally I think a smack in the mouth is more suitable.

 

I would not find the intentional mockery and humiliation of the intellectually impaired acceptable in normal society and I fail to see why it should be acceptable in the name of "research".

[swansont]

The article doesn't go into any detail about what they allegedly said or did to be suspended, or details about the thesis. Was it a psychology investigation, for instance?

 

"Freedom of speech" is typically a reference to government censorship of expression, not rules set up by one's employer.

[Dak]

"Mr Portmann, an associate professor with QUT's Creative Industries Faculty, is supervising the thesis"

 

assuming 'Creative Industries Faculty' = media studies, no, not psychological; a 'soft' science by the looks of it.

 

I don't know how good the ethical safeguards are in the soft sciences?

 

Obviously the student is expecting a pass but personally I think a smack in the mouth is more suitable

 

'laughing at the disabled' may not be nice, but neither is rape, aids, cancer, racism, etc; all of these have been scientifically investigated, tho, in order to understand the phenomenas better.

 

anyway, 'mentally disabled' doesn't neccesarily mean 'incapable of giving informed consent'; people with torrets, schizophrenia, spastic, etc, can all probably pass as 'mentally disabled', but still understand what's going on and give concent to be laughed at.

 

I think condeming the uni as bad is a bit pre-emptive, given the little info we have.

[Pangloss]

I don't understand this at all. In media res is great for fiction, but not the best way to explain socio-political events.

[bored_teen]

freedom of speech is one thing. political correctness is another. and suggestion of a felony is something else altogether. we DO have free speech in America. but we'll be jailed for writing a threatening letter to the President. why? because that is suggestion of a felony, which is against the law.we live in a politically correct society, so using derogatory slang will land you in trouble. just because it's not against the law doesn't mean it's right. and you can bet someone will have a problem with what you say. they may/may not do something about it. but we have the right. so **** you, all you niggers, chinks, and beaners. just watch me get in trouble for that. then again, maybe i won't, due to the context of this post. so maybe this should be moved to psychology.........

 

btw, i have absolutely nothing against those of African, Asian, or Mexican descent. those terms were used to merely prove a point.

[JohnB]

'laughing at the disabled' may not be nice, but neither is rape, aids, cancer, racism, etc; all of these have been scientifically investigated, tho, in order to understand the phenomenas better.

Dak, this is a media studies course so I doubt that "scientific investigation" will actually count for much.

 

It's not the topic chosen for "research" I object to but the method, the deliberate "setting up". If someone was doing a media thesis on "The Aftermath of Rape" and deliberately set up some poor woman to be raped, such actions would be totally unacceptable, so why should ridicule and mockery be allowed?

 

There's a further article here.

While it does mention support from the disability support group Spectrum, it fails to mention that other groups are very concerned.

 

The original "Australian" article is here. I have to say I agree with them 100%.

[swansont]

freedom of speech is one thing. political correctness is another. and suggestion of a felony is something else altogether. we DO have free speech in America. but we'll be jailed for writing a threatening letter to the President. why? because that is suggestion of a felony, which is against the law.we live in a politically correct society, so using derogatory slang will land you in trouble. just because it's not against the law doesn't mean it's right. and you can bet someone will have a problem with what you say. they may/may not do something about it. but we have the right. so **** you, all you niggers, chinks, and beaners. just watch me get in trouble for that. then again, maybe i won't, due to the context of this post. so maybe this should be moved to psychology.........

 

btw, i have absolutely nothing against those of African, Asian, or Mexican descent. those terms were used to merely prove a point.

 

However, were you to be somehow sanctioned for using those terms by SFN's moderators or admins, it would not be a freedom of speech issue, as the government is not the one restricting your speech.

[Dak]

If someone was doing a media thesis on "The Aftermath of Rape" and deliberately set up some poor woman to be raped, such actions would be totally unacceptable, so why should ridicule and mockery be allowed?

 

because rape requires a lack of concent and a taking-advantage-of.

 

we still haven't seen wether these people were incapable of making their own descisions, nor that they were exploited.

 

While it does mention support from the disability support group Spectrum, it fails to mention that other groups are very concerned.

 

I wonder which groups did/didn't actually see the film so far, or even look into it at all?

[bored_teen]

However, were you to be somehow sanctioned for using those terms by SFN's moderators or admins, it would not be a freedom of speech issue, as the government is not the one restricting your speech.

 

oh, i understand that completely. i realise that certain phrases i have used are against the rules to which i agreed to register. i still have the right to say it, but SFN also has the right to ban me for it.

[Sayonara]

Isn't the idea that it is not okay to set up and mock disabled people, but fine if you do it to anyone else, inherently discriminatory?

[bored_teen]

yup. I have a question, by the way. Why is it ok for black people to call eachother "nigger" or "nigga", but when a white person does it, it's immediatly rascist?

[ecoli]

yup. I have a question, by the way. Why is it ok for black people to call eachother "nigger" or "nigga", but when a white person does it, it's immediatly rascist?

 

it depends on who they say it to. I know some black people who would never call each other that (they nerds, not "gangstas"). I know some black people who wouldn't care if a white person called them that, as long as they were well acquainted... there's not set rule.

[Sisyphus]

It all depends on context, as ecoli said. Also, the thing with the word "nigger" in particular is that it has such a charged history that it can have completely different meanings based only on whether the person saying it is black or not. For example, traditionally it means "black person" in a highly pejorative sense, which obviously doesn't make sense if the speaker is black. So if you're white and saying it, it's assumed you mean the common meaning and are a racist douche unless it's clear from the context otherwise. Or, if you're not racist, then you at least don't care enough not to make clear that you're not and so are being intentionally offensive in a different way.

 

Hopefully that word will lose it's power, as it already has begun to, and we won't have to worry about it anymore. But that hasn't happened yet, and for now trying to be provocative by calling people niggers in a "it's just a word" way will get you justly punched in the face.

 

Also, there's something to be said about minor taboos on "swear words" in general. Namely, it gives them their power. Sometimes you just have to curse, and if there aren't any "dirty" words to use, you're stuck. What are you going to say when you drop something heavy on your foot? I mean, it's a joke and it's not. I remember reading in an article somewhere a hypothesis that obscenities have an important function of civilization itself: blowing off steam. The brain works in a similar way when you're cursing as when you're being angrily violent, except nobody gets hurt. So making words like **** "just a word" could be very dangerous indeed...

[abskebabs]

Also, there's something to be said about minor taboos on "swear words" in general. Namely, it gives them their power. Sometimes you just have to curse, and if there aren't any "dirty" words to use, you're stuck. What are you going to say when you drop something heavy on your foot? I mean, it's a joke and it's not. I remember reading in an article somewhere a hypothesis that obscenities have an important function of civilization itself: blowing off steam. The brain works in a similar way when you're cursing as when you're being angrily violent, except nobody gets hurt. So making words like **** "just a word" could be very dangerous indeed...

I'm finding the last paragraph of your post incredibly awakening. You mention that obscenities help us "blow off steam", I mean, I would guess that this probably extends beyond the verbal domain. Do you think that ppl like to watch violence or unfair humour to release some sort of "primal tension?" I dont mean this in a personal way at all, I am just purely curious about the possible extension of your point.

 

I can see how it could work in other ways, for example association with obscenities, may help allow their acceptance and this would then be followed by their practice. Also it depends if this kind of behaviour is at all tolerated or sponsored by perceived higher authourities, e.g.; parents, teachers, government etc.

 

While reading this thread I have been wondering myself, if this kind of study, though the grounds or means of which may be ethically questionable, as I feel JohnB has correctly pointed out. However, I dont know much about the actual investigation itself, as has already been alluded to so: Perhaps the intention of this kind of thing may have been made to actually investigate the audience and their own responses to this kind of video. If anything this would be where any material valuable to their research could be found. If this is not the case, then at the moment I am puzzled as to how it could really be called research.

 

If the research is genuine, then perhaps the goal is genuine but I think from what I perceive so far the methods are unnaceptable, but then again; as Pangloss has pointed out we lack information about consent and how other issues have been tackled. Within a controlled scenario, and in a strict context such work could be acceptable.