The horrible events of the last few days raise some questions: We - TopicsExpress



          

The horrible events of the last few days raise some questions: We support free speech but condemn, even forbid, hate speech. Are we selective in what we consider hate speech? Can satire ever qualify as genuine hate speech? If so, do we stand for the right to hateful characterizations? My own view is that free speech (in Americas general understanding, that is) fpretty much guarantees the right to offend, and that the guiding rule should be to censor almost nothing. But that last bit is tricky: We dont permit nudity or certain other imagery--or certain language--on network TV, or Facebook for that matter (or language on radio); we try to shut down and punish sharing certain secrets or violations of privacy, even in the free press; we limit speech in our schools; and on and on. (By we I dont mean we--I mean the decisive powers that have enough influence to convince many of us that we share their values.) Also, if an editor chooses not to publish a certain point of view, there are often fair reasons for that: i.e., the publication doesnt support that view or the writing doesnt make the case--or, as is sometimes the case, a publication or site doesnt want to offend an advertiser. Then theres self-censorship: If some sites or news services choose not to show examples of Charlie Hebdos satire, is that cowardice or censorship, or simply fairly considered discretion? If a news source chooses not to show a derogatory characterization of President Obama, is that a fair call? Or if a site publishes such an image, is that poor judgment, or an example of ugly, but protected, taste? Weigh in if you like, but Im imposing my own choice of censorship here: Dont call each other bad things.
Posted on: Sat, 10 Jan 2015 00:44:45 +0000

Trending Topics



Recently Viewed Topics




© 2015