Free speech
I think the Catholic Church in New Zealand is flat wrong to take offence - but I defend their right to say so.
The Catholic Church are taking offence at satire - well they've been taking offence at, and attempting to silence, anyone who disagrees with them for millenia - and this includes scientists like Gallileo Gallilei.
We went through all this with the Enlightenment - where Western culture decided that free speech was a far more vital plank to happiness than attempting not to offend the local shamans.
But now that freedom is under threat from Muslims, Catholics and the President of the United States.
The Catholic Church's stand runs the risk of being a chilling affect on free speech and encouraging uncertain self-censorship. Editors are not clear on where they should draw the line and are more likely to draw the line too narrow by mistake. But we have a way of agreeing on what the boundaries on free speech are - it's called Parliament where all the people are represented. We have laws such as the Film, Videos and Publications Act 1993, the Defamation Act, and the act that set up the Broadcasting Standards Authority. In enacting these acts Parliament consulted with all the public using the Select Committeee process. The resulting legislation can then be held to be the will of the people.
But the Catholic Church, and the Muslims who protested, wish to impose their own opinion of decency and offence on the rest of us. They should be resisted.
Patrick Quin of Macs Recruitment has decided to remove his advertising from CanWest's radio networks in a boycott. That's his right. Can I suggest that those of us who desire freedom of opinion boycott Macs Recruitment in turn.
The Muslim cartoon incident is a little different - and my opinion has been seesawing on this for a while. There are good points made on both sides. The problem is two-fold. The cartoons in question have little value beyond provocation. They weren't funny. The second problem is that they were published in newspapers where it is hard to avoid them and Muslim shopkeepers have to choose whether to sell it. Because South Park is on TV people can quite simply avoid watching it. It will be shown with warnings in front of it. If the show will offend you, choose not to watch you. But do not impose your sense of offence on the rest of us.
The Catholic Church are taking offence at satire - well they've been taking offence at, and attempting to silence, anyone who disagrees with them for millenia - and this includes scientists like Gallileo Gallilei.
We went through all this with the Enlightenment - where Western culture decided that free speech was a far more vital plank to happiness than attempting not to offend the local shamans.
But now that freedom is under threat from Muslims, Catholics and the President of the United States.
The Catholic Church's stand runs the risk of being a chilling affect on free speech and encouraging uncertain self-censorship. Editors are not clear on where they should draw the line and are more likely to draw the line too narrow by mistake. But we have a way of agreeing on what the boundaries on free speech are - it's called Parliament where all the people are represented. We have laws such as the Film, Videos and Publications Act 1993, the Defamation Act, and the act that set up the Broadcasting Standards Authority. In enacting these acts Parliament consulted with all the public using the Select Committeee process. The resulting legislation can then be held to be the will of the people.
But the Catholic Church, and the Muslims who protested, wish to impose their own opinion of decency and offence on the rest of us. They should be resisted.
Patrick Quin of Macs Recruitment has decided to remove his advertising from CanWest's radio networks in a boycott. That's his right. Can I suggest that those of us who desire freedom of opinion boycott Macs Recruitment in turn.
The Muslim cartoon incident is a little different - and my opinion has been seesawing on this for a while. There are good points made on both sides. The problem is two-fold. The cartoons in question have little value beyond provocation. They weren't funny. The second problem is that they were published in newspapers where it is hard to avoid them and Muslim shopkeepers have to choose whether to sell it. Because South Park is on TV people can quite simply avoid watching it. It will be shown with warnings in front of it. If the show will offend you, choose not to watch you. But do not impose your sense of offence on the rest of us.
posted by Edward Sargisson at 8:00 pm
3 Comments:
"But the Catholic Church, and the Muslims who protested, wish to impose their own opinion of decency and offence on the rest of us. They should be resisted."
where do you draw the line? should we also resist against the government who 'impose their own opinion of decency and offence on the rest of us' by outlawing images of bestiality and child pornography? is having decency imposed on us nessesarily a bad thing? if decency is an unwelcome imposition for the majority of citizens then that does not bode well for society as a whole.
Ideally we all should adhere to our own "sense of decency" and in an ideal world everybody's "sense of decency" would be the same. In the real world this is not the case and this difference causes friction.
Free speech by definition can not have boundaries and we see how difficult it can be to draw the line between decent and indecent. Perhaps, as a society, we should let go of the notion of wanting to impose our own ideas on others, whether they be ideas about decency, education, religion, government etc, and learn to accept that we are all different and we all want to make our own choices.
Well, as almost always, I agree with Mashy.
There are limits to free speech - but those limits can be agreed by society as a whole and should not be imposed by some interest group claiming that their offence is special.
This goes for both Muslims and Catholics.
I find such attempted limits to free speech personally offensive - in fact more than offensive. I find them highly dangerous to the freedoms we enjoy and that our forebears worked so hard for.
Post a Comment
<< Home