Sack this revolting specimen

[visualnickmos]

:erm:

:erm: indeed!

[P. G. Tipps]

How silly all this is ...

Any true defender of free speech, no matter how much it may occasionally hurt us personally, will steadfastly agree with Waldo's comments.

Whatever our views on the matter (and the Gay Rights activists who quite deliberately and provocatively marched thro' Russian Orthodox property, and caused the stupid woman's obscene outburst in the first place, are no innocents here) members should not abuse Waldo for refusing to succumb to hysteria and for simply stating the obvious.

No threats of violence were actually involved in this case however crass and juvenile the language used.

In any case ...

http://landandseajournal.com/georgia-passes-gay-rights-law-for-eu-benifits/

Sort of rather puts things in perspective ... ?

[french frank]

Not sure what a 'true defender' of free speech might be:

"The right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and is commonly subject to limitations based on the speech implications of the harm principle including libel, slander, obscenity and pornography, sedition, hate speech, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements."

[Beef Oven!]

Not sure what a 'true defender' of free speech might be:

"The right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and is commonly subject to limitations based on the speech implications of the harm principle including libel, slander, obscenity and pornography, sedition, hate speech, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements."

You ought to be sure of what a true defender of free speech might be. It doesn't require much imagination, after all.

And P.G. Tipps gives a whacking big clue in his first sentence, as to what he means. it's something to with the subjugation of one's own particular preferences and desires to the general goal of freedom of expression, save for the limits that are set out in the quotation you give (what's it from btw?). Defending free speech on that basis can reasonably described as 'true'. I have focused on what it is, rather than what it's not.

Of course, I could be wrong.

[P. G. Tipps]

Not sure what a 'true defender' of free speech might be:

"The right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and is commonly subject to limitations based on the speech implications of the harm principle including libel, slander, obscenity and pornography, sedition, hate speech, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements."

That's true ... there has to be rules on many things and also a dividing line between hurtful obscenities and genuine incitement to violence.

Some very nasty things have been uttered on internet forums (including, sadly, this one!) against many people and institutions but as long as it is simply obscenities and it it does not involve threats of violence I suspect most of us can accept that as the small price we pay for being able to speak our minds freely and fearlessly?

As Waldo correctly states we can all be offended by the views of others. Many Russians and other Eastern Europeans and Africans, for example, are clearly offended by the purely Western notion of Gay Rights.

Real tolerance is in accepting the right of others to insult us as much as might insult them!

[jean]

You ought to be sure of what a true defender of free speech might be. It doesn't require much imagination, after all.

That's a very specific use of might. It is an ostensibly politer way of saying 'I do not know what .... is'.

[french frank]

Well, to put it another way, in the words of JS Mill (On Liberty): "for such actions as are prejudicial to the interests of others, the individual is accountable, and may be subjected either to social or to legal punishments, if society is of opinion that the one or the other is requisite for its protection." In other words, you may not be prevented from saying whatever you want to, but there may be social consequences, if not legal ones.

[Beef Oven!]

That's a very specific use of might. It is a politer way of saying I do not know what .... is.

Is this a double act?

[richardfinegold]

Welcome to the Forum, P.G. Politics are a digression here. We normally would prefer to talk about more important matters, such as what would be your 39 most preferred versions of a Brahms Symphony.:laugh:
I don 't agree with anything that you have said here, but don't wish to reheat a cold dish. I look forward to interacting with you, Waldo, and the rest of the group on the music boards.

[P. G. Tipps]

Welcome to the Forum, P.G. Politics are a digression here. We normally would prefer to talk about more important matters, such as what would be your 39 most preferred versions of a Brahms Symphony.:laugh:
I don 't agree with anything that you have said here, but don't wish to reheat a cold dish. I look forward to interacting with you, Waldo, and the rest of the group on the music boards.

Thank you for your most kind welcome, richard!

I do appreciate your sudden desire to return swiftly to music matters and must agree wholeheartedly with you that this particular part of the Forum is hardly the natural home for this sort of thread, though I have to stress again that my point (and quite clearly waldo's, also) was not intended to be 'political' ... in fact, quite the opposite! It was more a plea for Logic & Consistency and, put rather more bluntly, the same rules for everyone however unpalatable (to us) some views may be! I trust that is now clear so I shall now willingly end my comparatively minor contributions towards the subject.

As for revealing my '39 most preferred versions of a Brahms Symphony', I have to confirm that, in my case at least, such an awesomely challenging question might prove to be about the same number of steps too far ... :sadface:

[MrGongGong]

Politics are a digression here.

Absolutely
Because, as we all know

"Music has nothing to do with politics" :HO HO HO HO:

[french frank]

And welcome to the board from me too, Mr Tipps.

You pick on the point in waldo's argument that I felt was a flaw, rather than the strength. The argument was founded on 'Logic and Consistency' as you say. But that leads to absolutist conclusions which don't correspond with Real Life - even the law isn't always logical and consistent.

So when waldo says we must allow certain rights to others if we wish to claim them for ourselves, yes, up to a point. But 'reasonable' people don't want to claim the right to say whatever they like, whenever they like to whomsoever they wish. People are different in their attitudes, particularly in different cultures and 'rights' usually go with 'responsibilities'. And in any case, the right to freedom of speech does not imply freedom from any consequences - merely that you cannot be prosecuted for what you say.

A couple of points about the present case: it seems to have occurred a year ago and Ms Iveri had already 'made her peace' with the LGBT group in Georgia. The story appears to have been raked up by the Australian media, presumably in view of her imminent arrival in the country.

There are sometimes either aggravating or mitigating circumstances: rather than defending Ms Iveri's right to express her opinion, no matter what, I would suggest that the outburst was provoked by rage at the fact that the Pride march was happening where and when it was. Much as 'road rage' can lead to violence which is not necessarily characteristic of such a person, this may not have reflected her usual behaviour.

[Mary Chambers]

She has now apparently been 'released' (sacked) by the comapny in Australia. Apologies if everyone else knew this already.

[MrGongGong]

One can learn impulse control

[french frank]

One can learn impulse control

I'm controlling my impulse to respond to that!