Posts by DCBCauchi
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to giovanni tiso,
I think the point is that degenerate artists came in for special treatment because they were artists
That was exactly my point. Artistic freedom – and freedom of speech more generally, for the same reasons and according to the same principles – is a precious thing that people have literally fought and died for.
It's not just an anarchist thing or an artistic thing. It's the very bedrock of a free, open, and tolerant society.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to Islander,
When I am dictator of the Known Universes, all people shall learn their histories.
Oh, and in all the hurly-burly I forgot to mention that this is one of the best lines I've ever read.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to Russell Brown,
No one, to my knowledge, has ever set out at night to injure or kill any anarchist painter they can find.
The painter Max Beckmann left Germany and never returned for a reason. That very reason in fact.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to Russell Brown,
I think you mean “extending my personal definition of harm”. The idea that vulnerable groups can suffer harm isn’t exactly novel.
Not all speech has the same reach, and not all responses are heard remotely as well as the original claim.
Can you really not grasp that speeches that, say, defames an ethnic minority might have significant, even disastrous implications for that minority?
Of course I can grasp that. All I'm asking, which no-one has bothered to address, is where is the line?
I've even offered a specific example. Robinson's picture: valid free speech or not ok?
And I am explicitly not meaning my 'personal definition' of harm. I'm specifically talking about the definition of harm that forms the basis for legislative restrictions on freedom of speech. How hard is that to grasp?
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to Che Tibby,
indeed. try putting up a picture that says – for arguments’ sakes
“F*CK JEWS WITH A BAT”.
no amount of arguing “free speech” is going to make that fly.
Or, to use a real world example, Peter Robinson's 'Pakeha have rights too'.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to Che Tibby,
nah, i’m not talking about you david.
but some people are…
There is always a Francis Picabia quote for every occasion:
'To those talking behind my back, my arse is looking at you.'
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to Sacha,
Freedom is “encroached on” already. Deal with it.
Wow, way to engage with the topic.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to Che Tibby,
for knee-jerk anarchism
I'm not sure if that's a reference to me or just my paranoia.
In case it's the former, I'll dispute the 'knee-jerk'. I'm a painter. That's all that I care about (except for certain personal relationships of course). From my point of view, 'artistic freedom' is not a meaningless or empty term (insofar as any term is not meaningless and empty). It has a direct relationship with my freedom of speech. As Renato Poggioli said in his 'Theory of the avant-garde', 'Every good artist is an anarchist.'
The argument being presented here, as far as I can make out, is that that freedom should be encroached on by extending the definition of harm.
Actually, maybe I do have a knee-jerk reaction to that after all.
-
Hard News: How much speech does it take?, in reply to Sacha,
There are other harms involved in denigrating groups of people.
Could you please specify not just what those harms are but also how they outweigh the benefits of free speech?
-
I'm not going to wade through several pages to find it, but someone, I think Sacha, mentioned constraints on broadcasting as a legitimate limit on free speech.
As I understand it, that limitation has two grounds: causing actual harm to someone (i.e. incitement to riot) and causing offence.
On the other hand, the purpose of free speech is to enable you to think freely, by enabling you to gather and exchange the information you need (i.e. pictures and words).
Let's not bother about harm. What I don't understand is why the cost of someone possibly being offended by something should outweigh the benefit of anyone else using that thing to create something new?
Could someone please explain the rationale? Or have I completely got the wrong end of the stick?