Comments on: The Freedom to be Offended — Part 2 http://www.deeshaa.org/2006/02/03/the-freedom-to-be-offended-part-2/ Mon, 13 Feb 2012 05:41:09 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Atanu Dey on India’s Development » Why Free Speech http://www.deeshaa.org/2006/02/03/the-freedom-to-be-offended-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-95995 Atanu Dey on India’s Development » Why Free Speech Mon, 26 Mar 2007 04:11:25 +0000 http://www.deeshaa.org/2006/02/03/the-freedom-to-be-offended-part-2/#comment-95995 [...] xpression. On Being an Armchair Intellectual. The Freedom to be Offended—Part 1, Part 2, Part 3] Add a Comment [...] [...] xpression. On Being an Armchair Intellectual. The Freedom to be Offended—Part 1, Part 2, Part 3]

Add a Comment

[...]

]]> By: articles http://www.deeshaa.org/2006/02/03/the-freedom-to-be-offended-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-6091 articles Sat, 04 Mar 2006 08:44:21 +0000 http://www.deeshaa.org/2006/02/03/the-freedom-to-be-offended-part-2/#comment-6091 How can I get an RSS feed on this blog? I am new to this and really like the content being discussed here. How can I get an RSS feed on this blog? I am new to this and really like the content being discussed here.

]]> By: Atanu Dey on India’s Development » The Freedom to be Offended — Part 3 http://www.deeshaa.org/2006/02/03/the-freedom-to-be-offended-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-5494 Atanu Dey on India’s Development » The Freedom to be Offended — Part 3 Tue, 07 Feb 2006 06:29:13 +0000 http://www.deeshaa.org/2006/02/03/the-freedom-to-be-offended-part-2/#comment-5494 [...] tra” I titled my two previous pieces exploring the freedom of expression as “The Freedom to be Offended” deliberately. Everyone is free to take off [...] [...] tra” I titled my two previous pieces exploring the freedom of expression as “The Freedom to be Offended” deliberately. Everyone is free to take off [...]

]]> By: kamolika http://www.deeshaa.org/2006/02/03/the-freedom-to-be-offended-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-5466 kamolika Sun, 05 Feb 2006 15:33:40 +0000 http://www.deeshaa.org/2006/02/03/the-freedom-to-be-offended-part-2/#comment-5466 Atanu, thanks for clarifying your position and like I said - while I agree that freedom of speech should be upheld - I tend to believe that questions like that raised by Sameer cannot be done away with (expressions like 'XYZ MUST be absolute' themselves smack off an unwillingness and intolerance of other's views, don't you think?) As an individual my right to freedom of speech is limited by laws of slander and libel - to be used if what I say is untrue and can prove damaging to others. In the area of politics between nations or religions or castes, are there no responsibilities that attend upon writing or saying whatever you feel like? Like talking about reviving Sati for instance? Or legalising female foeticide? Or giving second citizen status to non-Hindus in India? - and don't even kid yourself for a moment that these views will not find enthusiastic adherents - there are enough crazies to go around!! <em><strong>Atanu's response:</strong> I think you have pointed out the most critical element in the whole debate. You write "As an individual my right to freedom of speech is limited by laws of slander and libel..." The operative phrase is "limited by laws." Laws limit free speech. And laws are local. They define <strong>what is legal and what is illegal in a specific location</strong>. In Denmark, the law says freedom to publish cartoons ridiculing religious figures is legal. In Saudi Arabia, speaking vilely of non-Muslims and non-Islamic religions is legal, but speaking ill of Islam is not. The problem is when one tried to apply the laws of one location globally.</em> Atanu, thanks for clarifying your position and like I said – while I agree that freedom of speech should be upheld – I tend to believe that questions like that raised by Sameer cannot be done away with (expressions like ‘XYZ MUST be absolute’ themselves smack off an unwillingness and intolerance of other’s views, don’t you think?)

As an individual my right to freedom of speech is limited by laws of slander and libel – to be used if what I say is untrue and can prove damaging to others. In the area of politics between nations or religions or castes, are there no responsibilities that attend upon writing or saying whatever you feel like?

Like talking about reviving Sati for instance? Or legalising female foeticide? Or giving second citizen status to non-Hindus in India? – and don’t even kid yourself for a moment that these views will not find enthusiastic adherents – there are enough crazies to go around!!

Atanu’s response: I think you have pointed out the most critical element in the whole debate. You write “As an individual my right to freedom of speech is limited by laws of slander and libel…” The operative phrase is “limited by laws.”

Laws limit free speech. And laws are local. They define what is legal and what is illegal in a specific location. In Denmark, the law says freedom to publish cartoons ridiculing religious figures is legal. In Saudi Arabia, speaking vilely of non-Muslims and non-Islamic religions is legal, but speaking ill of Islam is not. The problem is when one tried to apply the laws of one location globally.

]]> By: Sameer http://www.deeshaa.org/2006/02/03/the-freedom-to-be-offended-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-5459 Sameer Sat, 04 Feb 2006 18:31:03 +0000 http://www.deeshaa.org/2006/02/03/the-freedom-to-be-offended-part-2/#comment-5459 I agree with you completely with the freedom of speech thing. The only thing I don't understand is how this is going to stop the expressions of this freedom, which spread hate. (e.g. use of swastika, denial of holocaust, or images of Mohd. as a terrorist). If sane heads prevail, then even with the freedom to do all of these things, people will not do them because they know it will spread hate and cause divisions. The cartoonist himself may not have wanted to (physically) harm anyone, but I am sure the cartoon will physically harm people. The many other European papers who re-published the cartoons to support freedom of speech were not thinking about spreading hatred or causing divisions. Was it their right to re-publish them? YES! Were they very smart in re-publishing them? HELL NO! (at least in my opinion) We know that saner heads don't usually prevail. Many countries are led by bunch of idiots. In your own words, "we live in a 'second best' world" (if I remember that correctly). How then are we to ensure that actions/expressions that spread hate and cause divisions don't occur AND that we don't undermine the freedom of speech/expression of views at the same time? I agree with you completely with the freedom of speech thing.

The only thing I don’t understand is how this is going to stop the expressions of this freedom, which spread hate. (e.g. use of swastika, denial of holocaust, or images of Mohd. as a terrorist). If sane heads prevail, then even with the freedom to do all of these things, people will not do them because they know it will spread hate and cause divisions. The cartoonist himself may not have wanted to (physically) harm anyone, but I am sure the cartoon will physically harm people. The many other European papers who re-published the cartoons to support freedom of speech were not thinking about spreading hatred or causing divisions. Was it their right to re-publish them? YES! Were they very smart in re-publishing them? HELL NO! (at least in my opinion)

We know that saner heads don’t usually prevail. Many countries are led by bunch of idiots. In your own words, “we live in a ’second best’ world” (if I remember that correctly). How then are we to ensure that actions/expressions that spread hate and cause divisions don’t occur AND that we don’t undermine the freedom of speech/expression of views at the same time?

]]> By: SV http://www.deeshaa.org/2006/02/03/the-freedom-to-be-offended-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-5456 SV Sat, 04 Feb 2006 12:38:56 +0000 http://www.deeshaa.org/2006/02/03/the-freedom-to-be-offended-part-2/#comment-5456 I agree completely. With all of it. No argument. Political correctness, and the ladylike wish to offend no one -- or worse, the fear that those who take offense will <i>hurt</i> us -- is not worth the trade of our robust liberties. If they don't like the cartoons, they should not look at the cartoons. I don't much like the few I have been able to see, myself. I agree completely. With all of it. No argument. Political correctness, and the ladylike wish to offend no one — or worse, the fear that those who take offense will hurt us — is not worth the trade of our robust liberties. If they don’t like the cartoons, they should not look at the cartoons. I don’t much like the few I have been able to see, myself.

]]> By: judith http://www.deeshaa.org/2006/02/03/the-freedom-to-be-offended-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-5450 judith Sat, 04 Feb 2006 03:19:07 +0000 http://www.deeshaa.org/2006/02/03/the-freedom-to-be-offended-part-2/#comment-5450 My comment is boring and useless because I agree with al I just read. The sanctimonious self-censorship called "political correctness" or just "sensitivity" or even "being nice" is insidious. But then, one way or another we are evidently tossing our liberties in the trash anyhow in the search for safety, for accommodation, for the hope of an unruffled life. Pfaugh. My comment is boring and useless because I agree with al I just read. The sanctimonious self-censorship called “political correctness” or just “sensitivity” or even “being nice” is insidious. But then, one way or another we are evidently tossing our liberties in the trash anyhow in the search for safety, for accommodation, for the hope of an unruffled life. Pfaugh.

]]> By: Tim http://www.deeshaa.org/2006/02/03/the-freedom-to-be-offended-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-5448 Tim Fri, 03 Feb 2006 23:24:11 +0000 http://www.deeshaa.org/2006/02/03/the-freedom-to-be-offended-part-2/#comment-5448 The Muslims are welcome to boycott and protest, but death theats are not acceptable. Radical islamists have a history of actually killing people because they are offended like (Theo Van Gogh). Also, the newspaper and the Danish farmers who produce cheese are different people and the latter have absolutely no control over the former. I recommend the book by VS Naipaul, Among the Believers The Muslims are welcome to boycott and protest, but death theats are not acceptable. Radical islamists have a history of actually killing people because they are offended like (Theo Van Gogh). Also, the newspaper and the Danish farmers who produce cheese are different people and the latter have absolutely no control over the former.

I recommend the book by VS Naipaul, Among the Believers

]]> By: balaji Shankar V http://www.deeshaa.org/2006/02/03/the-freedom-to-be-offended-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-5446 balaji Shankar V Fri, 03 Feb 2006 22:59:19 +0000 http://www.deeshaa.org/2006/02/03/the-freedom-to-be-offended-part-2/#comment-5446 Excellent and a very relevant post. I also had the same question as Kamolika and also wondered about this issue with regards to the cyber media. What rules govern this space and how does one draw the line there? Will wait for your article -<i>" explaining why I see red when the freedom of expression is trampled upon"</i> Excellent and a very relevant post. I also had the same question as Kamolika and also wondered about this issue with regards to the cyber media. What rules govern this space and how does one draw the line there? Will wait for your article -” explaining why I see red when the freedom of expression is trampled upon”

]]> By: RealHull http://www.deeshaa.org/2006/02/03/the-freedom-to-be-offended-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-5440 RealHull Fri, 03 Feb 2006 13:21:13 +0000 http://www.deeshaa.org/2006/02/03/the-freedom-to-be-offended-part-2/#comment-5440 Freedom of expression must be absolute otherwise it is not free. Freedom of expression must be absolute otherwise it is not free.

]]> By: Abhijat http://www.deeshaa.org/2006/02/03/the-freedom-to-be-offended-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-5437 Abhijat Fri, 03 Feb 2006 09:13:08 +0000 http://www.deeshaa.org/2006/02/03/the-freedom-to-be-offended-part-2/#comment-5437 Perhaps what also needs emphasis are the ways of exercising the responsibility that goes with a freedom. Put another way, criticisms to support any particular freedom are based on the varied perceptions about the <em>responsibilities</em> that accompany it. In practice, we tend to interpret "Your freedoms stop where my nose begins" as prescriptions for others than our own selves. Here's another <a href="http://www.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=57004" rel="nofollow">example</a>. An aside: I wonder if it is possible to compare the returns of upholding freedoms responsibly versus coercive responses. Just my fanciful flight :). I enjoyed this a lot. Perhaps what also needs emphasis are the ways of exercising the responsibility that goes with a freedom. Put another way, criticisms to support any particular freedom are based on the varied perceptions about the responsibilities that accompany it. In practice, we tend to interpret “Your freedoms stop where my nose begins” as prescriptions for others than our own selves. Here’s another example.

An aside: I wonder if it is possible to compare the returns of upholding freedoms responsibly versus coercive responses. Just my fanciful flight :) .

I enjoyed this a lot.

]]> By: Nath http://www.deeshaa.org/2006/02/03/the-freedom-to-be-offended-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-5435 Nath Fri, 03 Feb 2006 08:36:52 +0000 http://www.deeshaa.org/2006/02/03/the-freedom-to-be-offended-part-2/#comment-5435 <blockquote>If a firm uses Ganesh’s image on their underwear or toilet seat or whatever, it is none of my business. They are free to do what they please within the law and I am free to buy their goods or not.</blockquote> You've hit the nail on the head. Saudi Arabia is allowed to boycott Danish goods, and make as much of a scene as it wants via appropriate diplomatic channels. They are only violating anyone's rights when they actually threaten to arrest people outside their borders--as far as I know, this hasn't happened yet. (The cartoonists have indeed been illegally threatened, but not--to my knowledge--by a government.)

If a firm uses Ganesh’s image on their underwear or toilet seat or whatever, it is none of my business. They are free to do what they please within the law and I am free to buy their goods or not.

You’ve hit the nail on the head. Saudi Arabia is allowed to boycott Danish goods, and make as much of a scene as it wants via appropriate diplomatic channels. They are only violating anyone’s rights when they actually threaten to arrest people outside their borders–as far as I know, this hasn’t happened yet. (The cartoonists have indeed been illegally threatened, but not–to my knowledge–by a government.)

]]> By: Parvati http://www.deeshaa.org/2006/02/03/the-freedom-to-be-offended-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-5434 Parvati Fri, 03 Feb 2006 08:16:18 +0000 http://www.deeshaa.org/2006/02/03/the-freedom-to-be-offended-part-2/#comment-5434 What you say here is just the well-accepted and workable theory of to-each-unto-himself as applied to different nations too. What should be rules of free speech and right to free expression in a global single world? What should be the international law regarding 'expression' for the whole earth? - where Muslims or Hindus have the same rights and duties as the Great Danes/danish journalists? What you say here is just the well-accepted and workable theory of to-each-unto-himself as applied to different nations too.
What should be rules of free speech and right to free expression in a global single world? What should be the international law regarding ‘expression’ for the whole earth? – where Muslims or Hindus have the same rights and duties as the Great Danes/danish journalists?

]]> By: Ashish Hanwadikar http://www.deeshaa.org/2006/02/03/the-freedom-to-be-offended-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-5433 Ashish Hanwadikar Fri, 03 Feb 2006 07:49:03 +0000 http://www.deeshaa.org/2006/02/03/the-freedom-to-be-offended-part-2/#comment-5433 <a href="http://ashish.typepad.com/ashishs_niti/2006/02/freedom_of_spee.html" rel="nofollow">The European Hypocrisy</a> The European Hypocrisy

]]> By: kamolika http://www.deeshaa.org/2006/02/03/the-freedom-to-be-offended-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-5430 kamolika Fri, 03 Feb 2006 06:53:33 +0000 http://www.deeshaa.org/2006/02/03/the-freedom-to-be-offended-part-2/#comment-5430 Just to counter with another perspective: what about when Hindus living in the US or Europe (and thereby holidng citizenship) are offended by pictures of Hindu Gods on branded cereals or underwear or some such? Would you say they have the right to protest what they perceive as an offensive use of their venerated images? If so, can one argue that to Danish-Muslim citizens (indeed there must be some!) these cartoons are repugnant and they have the right to seek redress?? Just to clarify, I agree with the sum and substance of what you are saying, but I just don't feel the issue is as black and white as you've drawn (i.e. ethnically homogeneous countries with laws catering to the majority ethno-religious population group) - its seems a little simplistic, if I may say so. <em><strong>Atanu's response:</strong> Let me spell it out very slowly. I am against the restriction of the freedom of expression. Period. That means I support the right of anyone to express whatever they wish to about whatever. No limits. If Muslims feel that Jews are pigs, I support their right to say so in words, pictures, speeches, dances and demostrations. If Christians feel that about Muslims, I support their right to express it. If a firm uses Ganesh's image on their underwear or toilet seat or whatever, it is none of my business. They are free to do what they please within the law and I am free to buy their goods or not. This is just a brief comment but I will explore this in an article in a few days explaining why I see red when the freedom of expression is trampled upon -- whether by Bush, by Hindus, by Muslims, or Martians. </em> Just to counter with another perspective: what about when Hindus living in the US or Europe (and thereby holidng citizenship) are offended by pictures of Hindu Gods on branded cereals or underwear or some such? Would you say they have the right to protest what they perceive as an offensive use of their venerated images? If so, can one argue that to Danish-Muslim citizens (indeed there must be some!) these cartoons are repugnant and they have the right to seek redress??

Just to clarify, I agree with the sum and substance of what you are saying, but I just don’t feel the issue is as black and white as you’ve drawn (i.e. ethnically homogeneous countries with laws catering to the majority ethno-religious population group) – its seems a little simplistic, if I may say so.

Atanu’s response: Let me spell it out very slowly. I am against the restriction of the freedom of expression. Period. That means I support the right of anyone to express whatever they wish to about whatever. No limits. If Muslims feel that Jews are pigs, I support their right to say so in words, pictures, speeches, dances and demostrations. If Christians feel that about Muslims, I support their right to express it. If a firm uses Ganesh’s image on their underwear or toilet seat or whatever, it is none of my business. They are free to do what they please within the law and I am free to buy their goods or not.

This is just a brief comment but I will explore this in an article in a few days explaining why I see red when the freedom of expression is trampled upon — whether by Bush, by Hindus, by Muslims, or Martians.

]]> By: Arvind Iyer http://www.deeshaa.org/2006/02/03/the-freedom-to-be-offended-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-5428 Arvind Iyer Fri, 03 Feb 2006 04:24:40 +0000 http://www.deeshaa.org/2006/02/03/the-freedom-to-be-offended-part-2/#comment-5428 Agree. 100% Agree.
100%

]]>