The right not to be offended?

[ajb]

In relation to the post about Britain's list of people who are not allowed to enter the UK I want to pose a question.

 

Does the right to not be physically attacked and live in peace lawfully in a democratic secular society extend to the right not to be offended?

 

It is clear that some of the laws in the UK about inciting hatred could if abused be used to attack freedom of speech.

 

Lets imagine that I said* "Homosexuality/Islam/ Christianity/ being not of white ethnicity etc is wrong/bad/undesirable etc". I may have offended people but do I have the right to say such things? I may have offended lots of people, but why should we have laws that effectively mean I cannot offend anyone? Am I inciting hatred or even violence? Any view on anything is going to have some opposition.

 

 

_______________________________________________________

* The views expressed here are for demonstration purposes only and in no way reflect the views or opinions of the author or any organisation associated with the author

[D H]

Does the right to not be physically attacked and live in peace lawfully in a democratic secular society extend to the right not to be offended?

No.

 

Freedom of expression, in my mind, is all about protecting the rights of truly offensive people to say truly offensive things. While freedom of expression does have limits, such as prohibitions against directly inciting violence, directly causing harm (falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater), falsely libeling someone, ..., those limits IMHO need to be very specific and very narrow.

 

My personal "come to Jesus moment" with regard to freedom of expression was when the westboro baptist church came to Houston for the sole purpose of getting publicity in wake of a tragedy. Did I truly despise everything they had to say, and in public? Yes. Did they have the right to do what they did? Absolutely.

 

Regarding speech that hurts someone's tender sensibilities: Man up, you wimps.

[ParanoiA]

D H just knocked it out of the ball park. Wish I could add, but I'll just sit here and be envious instead.

[iNow]

I'm reminded of the "give them enough rope to hang themselves" saying. Let them air their ignorance and idiocy out in the open. That's the only thing that will shed light on it and allow it to ultimately be defeated.

 

Covering up these views... these hatreds, biases, and ignorances... or protecting those views by law (at the expense of free speech) will simply allow them to fester, like an infected pustule under the skin of our civilization.

 

One of the beauties about placing free speech above the "right not to be offended" is that free speech allows both sides to comment, regardless of their views. It allows free, fair, and public debate and the more meritorious arguments will (as a general rule) tend to win out in the end.

 

You also have difficulty with the fuzzy undefinable nature of what causes "offense." For example, I get offended that religion has poisoned the minds of so many of my friends and loved ones. I am offended that so many people in our populace don't accept evolution, can't do basic maths, or think that homosexuality is an abomination. I am offended that the television programs censor words that I say, read, and hear every day, and I am offended that they blur out the nakedness of the gorgeous females instead of respecting the beauty of the human form and being honest with our natural inclinations and desires.

 

On the other side of that same coin, however, are people who are offended when that same nakedness is allowed in television programs... offended that swear words are allowed... offended that their children are being taught the science of evolution at school, or offended that homosexuals live in their communities.

 

Offense is not a well-defined or objective variable... It's just variable. We have no "right" not to be offended, nor should we.

 

 

Let the hateful say what they want (with the restrictions so well articulated by DH above). Let the ignorant spout their ridiculousness. Let the indoctrinated show their neuroses and myopic views, displaying just how far separated they are from reality. When they do so, that same right to free speech we've granted them also applies to us... and it allows us to shine a bright spotlight on their ignorance... to bring their stupidity into the light of day for all to see.

 

Give them enough rope to hang themselves.

 

 

I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it.

[Pangloss]

The problem we face in my country is not so much the lack of outlet for opinion, but the way that opinion is distorted and manipulated by people with ideological goals.

 

The notion seems to be that opinions need to be spun and managed before a society so that its members properly interpret them and draw the correct conclusions. Busy and feeble minds have to be told how to interpret things. A community's basic rules of acceptability, which shape future courses of action, are determined by its most active and engaged participants, therefore, the notion goes, that group must control the perceptions of those who disagree with them. This is the methodology of the partisan demagogue, such as a talk radio hack (though it's certainly not limited to that venue).

 

I propose that people defend the right of an individual to not only say something, but to have the meaning of what they're saying interpreted as intended, and not spun or obfuscated or distorted to suit somebody else's agenda. That would also be something worth defending to the death.

[bascule]

Does the right to not be physically attacked and live in peace lawfully in a democratic secular society extend to the right not to be offended?

 

Most certainly not. If you don't want to be offended, stop being so uptight.

 

It'd bad form to be offensive, and there's certainly words (e.g. the n-word) that just shouldn't be used. But even so, it shouldn't be a crime.

[Mr Skeptic]

Of course, if you allow free speech, then eventually, you will run into the occasional speech that causes harm to others. It could be direct but not physical, such as offending someone, could potentially cause permanent psychological damage (the kid who gets teased by everyone). It could indirectly/unreliably cause physical harm, such as a kid who was constantly teased committing suicide, or teaching hate eventually resulting in someone hurting someone. And it could be both direct and physical harm, such as ordering someone's death. The last case is clearly illegal and clearly should be. For the first two cases, I could see the sense in making some restrictions, but not in such a way that it could be seen clearly and objectively.

 

I'd err on the side of free speech. Free thought of a society requires free speech IMO.

 

I propose that people defend the right of an individual to not only say something, but to have the meaning of what they're saying interpreted as intended, and not spun or obfuscated or distorted to suit somebody else's agenda. That would also be something worth defending to the death.

 

Could the spinning and obfuscating be dealt with via laws against slander/libel?

[Pangloss]

Could the spinning and obfuscating be dealt with via laws against slander/libel?

 

Our British members may be able to speak more directly to this issue, and when it's come up in the past they seem to have mixed feelings about it. My feeling is that only the most extreme such dangers should be protected by law, if any are at all. An immediate threat can temporarily trump personal freedom, for example, so if something comparable applied here then it should be explored.