The West Is Choked by Fear
spiegel.deIn the UK at least, we deal with difficult subjects through satire. But where do you draw the line? I am one for open - although much material on the web is offensive (as seen from me). I'd have rather the images were reprinted, and have the whole thing forgotten about. But there was some gesture of respect and sensitivity shown by the west deriding the work. The debate has also come up with the turn around of the BBC to allow the BNP on question time. So I think it is important to provide the material and the appropriate fora, and freedoms of speech. The herd and mob mentality is usually a result of ignorance. But it takes a long time for attitudes to change. In Britain in the eighties, people were still afraid to speak their minds or challenge the establishment. My father's attitudes have changed incredibly over the last 10 years. And I guess so have mine.
My personal belief is that people can practice what they like, but with the following caveats: no harm to others, animals or the planet. I don't belong to any faith, but see myself as more 'Christian' then many practising Christians. People get lost in doctrine or the mob, and forget to question for themselves. Natural law is far simpler.
The web provides an outlet for many voices, who's authority do you trust? Moderation requires some form of censorship. I'd rather it all open. I can't stand pruned forums, they feel like rigged referendums. It's just incredibly difficult wading through it all. As usually the average Joe, hasn't really anything much interesting to say.
So is it fear or learned sensitivity?
But where do you draw the line?
In a free society there should be no line. A person should be free to say absolutely anything. There is certainly a possibility of causing harm by way of your speech, but this should be handled post hoc, with a court determining damages.
America partially observes this with a watered-down doctrine of prior restraint, but it's got enough exceptions that it's not worth so much.
I've heard the reasoning in this article before, and it's deeply flawed.
It's true that we in the West have the right to offend, but being a troll doesn't make you a righteous defender of freedom.. Those cartoons weren't some type of brilliant artwork, they were simple trolling.
While I'll stand up for someone's right to be a troll, they certainly shouldn't expect my support and respect. Instead, that is reserved for the millions who fought and died to establish and protect our freedoms in the first place.
If we aren't willing to stand up for unpleasant and offensive things then we aren't willing to stand up for freedom of speech at all.
And frankly, having seen the cartoons, anyone who thinks the cartoonists deserve to either die or face attempts on their lives is a nutcase who we should be willing to stand up to.
Yes, precisely. If you have the freedom to do only things that absolutely no one else could take offense from then you do not have freedom.
They need all of our support against those who are actively threatening violence as an appropriate response. Such people need to hear in no uncertain terms that we in the West will not tolerate violence in response to expression, even if it is a troll.
If they want to condemn and denounce in no uncertain terms those cartoons or any other kind of expression, fine. But we must never tolerate acts of violence as an acceptable response to an act of speech.
"In the name of the great FSM (oh great and merciful one) I hereby declare thumb war upon you and call upon all my followers on hte twitters to hunt you down and dislocate both your opposable appendages for the great blasphemy you have committed in your public and offensive denials that trolls are also sacred to the sacrosanct principle of freedom of speech and thought."
Do you like that now punk?
Thought not.
You see, it stops mattering that they're puerile and reprehensible prats the moment you start to threaten physical violence.
By saying: "I will make you stop saying that even if I have to use force" you have guaranteed two outcomes:
The point of the original article was not to defend the trolls but rather to point out the fact that civil society is becoming increasingly tolerant of violent threats when they are made by members of fundamentalist religious movements.1) They will _definitely_ not stop saying the thing which is making you so mad. 2) Any responsible person hearing this would start dialing 911 before you do something you will regret for the rest of your life.Given that these threats, in recent years, are all to often starting to turn to action it becomes quite important to ask how much of this behavior we can tolerate before our society too ceases to be civil?
The point of the original article was not to defend the trolls but rather to point out the fact that civil society is becoming increasingly tolerant of violent threats when they are made by members of fundamentalist religious movements.
I don't think we are tolerant of fundamentalist religious movements; we certainly would not excuse Christians for threatening artists [1]. We are tolerant of bad behavior by non-westerners because we feel that criticizing them makes us racist.
[1] For an example of this, witness the reaction when Guiliani suggested defunding a museum over the "Piss Christ" exhibit.
Freedom of speech isn't defended at Michaelangeo's David; It's defended at Larry Flynt's Hustler.
I see where this argument comes from. It's a bit of a chestnut but this probably applies:
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Indeed it could be argued that allowing him to be persecuted for his trolling in such an excessive way is doing a dis-service to those who died protecting this freedom.
When applied to any other religion in the world, especially Christianity, it's legitimate criticism. But somehow Islam gets special dispensation (perhaps because Islamic reactionaries have a tendency towards violence, and cowards have a tendency towards caving in to threats of violence).
"Piss Christ" (look it up) has been lauded as a legitimate work of art. And cartoons that are much more intentionally harmful toward Christianity or Judaism are printed on editorial pages every day in the western world.
The Mohammad cartoons were very mild in comparison to the standards of criticism in the western world. If we cannot support criticism of Islam because we lack the balls to set Muslims straight when they throw violent tantrums then we do not have freedom of speech anymore. And it's only a matter of time before Muslims make greater and greater use of this new power they've discovered. And too it's only a matter of time before every group realizes that threats of violence are an effective means of exercising influence over others.
Trolling is a good detector for the maturity of your victims. Sensible people ignore it or are amused. Others respond seriously or go mental.
Trick question: am I a troll or not?
Is a troll another name for devil's advocate? That's the way I see it. You don't know sometimes if the person or the presenting attitude is that of troll or not.
Is to troll to be deliberately malicious? Does this really help the debate? Digg and Youtube have just become a forum for immature witticisms and derogatory put downs - trolls.
HN is not the right place for such a debate.
I think a lot of hackers are interested in free speech issues. Myself included
Hmm. Important stuff. But not really hackers news material. Or do I misunderstand the intention of this post?
It's one of those borderline posts - on the one hand it isn't really hacker news, but on the other hand it's important and about basic freedom. Which is dear to hackers. I think it has merit,so I upvoted it.