Gun attack on French magazine Charlie Hebdo kills 11

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Would you defend a newspaper's right to print flat out racist jokes against blacks, Jews, Asians, etc?

Well no, that would qualify as Hate Speech under Canadian law. Good of you to equate something tasteless with something illegal however.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by Pointman

I'm not sure to be honest and I mean in sincerely, not in a debating style.
I realize there's a freedom of speech, but the declaration of human rights says:

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.


I'm not sure if such pictures show respect to those people who lost relatives in the plane crash. I am also not sure whether making fun out of people tragic deathes meets the "just requirements of morality".

I'm not sure I give a damn, since the USSR did not support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Russia has done nothing to change that.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Would you defend a newspaper's right to print flat out racist jokes against blacks, Jews, Asians, etc?

Provided that the jokes don't incite violence against those groups? Absolutely. That's where the line is. Nothing else is subject to censorship nor is it above scathing criticism. Print your racist jokes all you want, just don't be surprised when people tell you they're awful.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

I'm not sure I give a damn, since the USSR did not support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Russia has done nothing to change that.

You are factually wrong. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was ratified by Russia at 5th May 1998. While it is debatable whether Russia actually keeps human rights up to the standard of said declaration, it is not debatable that whatever flaws related to human rights exist in Russia, those flaws shouldn't be grounds to laugh at dying russian children.

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Provided that the jokes don't incite violence against those groups? Absolutely. That's where the line is. Nothing else is subject to censorship nor is it above scathing criticism. Print your racist jokes all you want, just don't be surprised when people tell you they're awful.

Really? Is it ok to print something like "Jews are dumbier than the rest of the world" (since I am half-jewish myself, I decided to use jews as example)? It doesn't incite violence. There are many offensive ways to say that races/nations/minorities suck in one way or another, without encouraging any violence against them.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Pointman

Really? Is it ok to print something like "Jews are dumbier than the rest of the world" (since I am half-jewish myself, I decided to use jews as example)? It doesn't incite violence. There are many offensive ways to say that races/nations/minorities suck in one way or another, without encouraging any violence against them.

Yes, actually. Any doctrine that suggests governments should be allowed to limit one's ability to be offensive is not a doctrine interested in free speech. The answer to offensive speech is more speech. People who speak out against your hypothetical person who makes statements like that.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Provided that the jokes don't incite violence against those groups? Absolutely. That's where the line is. Nothing else is subject to censorship nor is it above scathing criticism. Print your racist jokes all you want, just don't be surprised when people tell you they're awful.

Remember when you got all bent out of shape about Swiss Miss? Hardly an incite to violence against women (or the Swiss, for that matter).

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...+target&page=9

[Pointman]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Yes, actually. Any doctrine that suggests governments should be allowed to limit one's ability to be offensive is not a doctrine interested in free speech. The answer to offensive speech is more speech. People who speak out against your hypothetical person who makes statements like that.

Freedom of speech is a human right. And, as put in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it should be exercised with respect to others (I quoted and linked it a page before). Thus offensive speech does not fall under "freedom of speech" rights.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Pointman

Freedom of speech is a human right. And, as put in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it should be exercised with respect to others (I quoted and linked it a page before). Thus offensive speech does not fall under "freedom of speech" rights.

You realize that some people find any explicit talk about sex, or even allusions to homosexual acts, very offensive, right? Should we defend their right not to be offended by gay rights parades, porn, and movies where people take the lord's name in vain? There is no universal consensus of what constitutes offensive speech. And speech we find perfectly acceptable today was once regarded as offensive.

In the absence of universally held notions of propriety, we allow speech that is far outside the bounds of what is regarded as decent. That's one of the deals with living in liberal society - tolerance for a wide range of thought and speech, even if it's ugly or dumb or offensive.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Remember when you got all bent out of shape about Swiss Miss? Hardly an incite to violence against women (or the Swiss, for that matter).

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...+target&page=9

Man you were really stoked so many people agreed with your awful opinion eh.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Remember when you got all bent out of shape about Swiss Miss? Hardly an incite to violence against women (or the Swiss, for that matter).

http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthr...+target&page=9

Yes. That was criticism. Rather mild criticism, really. You are entirely allowed to make sexist jokes about hockey players, but I think you shouldn't make those jokes for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it insults some damned good female hockey players.

This is precisely how the system should function. You say something I don't like, I tell you why I don't like it. Hopefully, you and / or others are convinced by my rationale. As Resolute said: more speech. Though in that instance I was just flat out wrong about the implication being sexist, so it's a bad example.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Man you were really stoked so many people agreed with your awful opinion eh.

What was my awful opinion?

CHL misunderstood the joke and thought it was sexist.

[Mr.Coffee]

I don't understand the allure. This seems like being an ass for the sake of being an ass. It's weird.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

I don't understand the allure. This seems like being an ass for the sake of being an ass. It's weird.

There's a long artistic tradition in France of outraging decent sensibilities for the sake of outraging decent sensibilities. In the U.S., that sort of thing is done by shock comedians. In France, it's done by cartoonists, dramatists, and other satirists.

[FlamesAddiction]

This is disgusting:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...toon-1.3403085

[Jordan!]

Who's to say that's not possible? It's an issue in Europe but yeah.. Probably could've passed on that

[blankall]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

This is disgusting:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...toon-1.3403085

It's really quite bizarre.

Hebdo, which is based on far left principles, saying the same thing the far right would say. Hebdo is saying it satirically and with the purpose to offend, as opposed to actually believing in it?

Not my cup of tea.

[burn_this_city]

These guys are human garbage.

[Looch City]

They are really stretching that 'freedom of speech'...

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Iggy City

They are really stretching that 'freedom of speech'...

It's not really "stretchable".