Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Steve H on July 08, 2020, 11:54:34 AM
-
https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/
-
Hmm! Pretty much a statement of the obvious.
Another such statement would seem to be "Trump and his coterie just ain't listening"
)O(
-
Hmm! Pretty much a statement of the obvious.
Another such statement would seem to be "Trump and his coterie just ain't listening"
)O(
It's not aimed at Trump, it's aimed at the ctrl-left.
-
If you are an advocate of free speech - is discussion of whether and when free speech should be limited off limits.
Discuss.
-
Hmmm
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53330105?fbclid=IwAR08K_ShT7nDGN_oc2UVEzP28Vej8CnfCXRe_u-9ZRGSa1HwzwwCWoG-rsw
https://reason.com/2020/07/08/the-reaction-to-the-harpers-letter-on-cancel-culture-proves-why-it-was-necessary/?fbclid=IwAR0KuPzDCs6Le9NQZjLs4HmuQA9hleRauL1QFa6W7xu-50cppNgvl0tEmBc
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-8503903/Jodie-Comer-targeted-Twitter-mob-dating-Donald-Trump-fan.html
-
Free speech is ok providing it isn't harmful, which racist and anti-gay bigotry most certainly is.
-
Free speech is ok providing it isn't harmful, which racist and anti-gay bigotry most certainly is.
"You are free to agree with me."
-
Free speech is ok providing it isn't harmful,
Mary Trump's new book might be considered harmful to Donald Trump.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53328654
Should it be banned?
which racist and anti-gay bigotry most certainly is.
How would you define bigotry? As an example, consider my view that women's sport should be open only to biological women. Some people would say that is anti-transgender bigotry. Are they right? Who decides what is bigotry?
-
I know there is a lot of discussion as to whether we are in a censorious age, with people left, right and centre wanted to silence people whose views they disagree with. And there seems to be an underlying current suggesting that there was once a kind of golden age for free speech which is now being eroded.
However I wonder whether that golden age is actually now. Never before has it been so easy to have your voice heard, and heard by millions. Social media has been a complete game changer in that respect.
Previously (as now) you could say pretty well whatever you liked (with some limits), but to be able to be heard by more than a tiny number of people required some form of 'distribution' network - whether that be print or broadcast media. And those that run those media outlets exercised great control over what was, and was not, permitted to be printed or broadcast. So if you had a view which was challenging, then you might put it out in a self-produced pamphlet or newsletter, but your audience would be tiny. Try to get agreement to put out those views view the mainstream media routes would likely mean hitting a brick wall.
Now, of course, social media and the internet allows individuals to get their views out to millions. And of course will generate strong opposing views in response.
I think we are still taking baby steps in this brave new world of social media largely without editorial control and we are struggling to get the balance right. But I don't think we are in a world where the ability of people to get their views heard by millions is somehow being curtailed compared to, say the 1980s. Quite the reverse.
-
But I don't think we are in a world where the ability of people to get their views heard by millions is somehow being curtailed compared to, say the 1980s.
Views are one thing, but threats and demeaning insults are another.
-
FIRE
Damn, that doesn't work anymore, all the theatres are closed.
-
Views are one thing, but threats and demeaning insults are another.
There are currently laws in place to deal with threats and defamation.
I think my point was that there has always been restrictions on freedom of speech/debate, partly via the laws I mention, but also through the editorial gatekeepers of traditional media. Those boundaries are being challenged by our ability to use the web and social media to reach huge audiences with no, or very little, editorial control.
I think we are struggling to re-evaluate those boundaries and put in place workable controls within the brave new world. However I don't think we in a situation which is more censorial than in the past in reality - quite the reverse.
-
There are currently laws in place to deal with threats and defamation.
I think my point was that there has always been restrictions on freedom of speech/debate, partly via the laws I mention, but also through the editorial gatekeepers of traditional media. Those boundaries are being challenged by our ability to use the web and social media to reach huge audiences with no, or very little, editorial control.
I think we are struggling to re-evaluate those boundaries and put in place workable controls within the brave new world. However I don't think we in a situation which is more censorial than in the past in reality - quite the reverse.
It's not about that.
You should read the Harpers letter to find out what it is about.
It is about, for example, a concerted campaign to remove Steven Pinker from his position in the Linguistic Society of America because he tweeted an article that claimed that the problem of police shootings may not be one of racism but one of police brutality.
It's about getting JK Rowling "canceled" for daring to say trans women and biological women are not the same.
Two people have withdrawn their signatures from the letter because the reaction from the ctrl left has left them fearing they might get fired from their jobs. Many other people didn't put their names to the letter in the first place for the same reason.