Sack this revolting specimen

[MrGongGong]

I'm controlling my impulse to respond to that!

Very good
(and i'm not claiming to always have it myself :WINK: )

[waldo]

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.
.

Yes, I think this is really important. I am not saying that there should be freedom from "consequences" for offensive/unpleasant comments. The question is whether those consequences come from culture/society/individuals or the state. The libertarian position is simply that causing offense or saying horrible things does not give sufficient grounds for the state to take action. But as Mill said (I think it was your quote earlier), that isn't the end: powerful forces come into play which stem from individual actions. We express our disgust, we write letters, we change our buying habits, we pull faces, we say what we think in discussions, politicians make speeches, journalists write articles and so on, we talk to our children and friends about it. (That's how culture changes, after all!) Of course, none of this could happen if the government decided to ban people from saying the things they happened to think. We wouldn't know what they thought, in fact, because we wouldn't be allowed to hear it in the first place. So we wouldn't be able to think about it either, or show our disgust, or argue that they are wrong. We couldn't even be sure we were right ourselves because we would never have the opportunity to think about it or subject it to criticism (since that would be against the law.......). As Mill said again, even when we are right, the right belief would gradually wither into dogma; it would lose its force, become a prejudice in it's own right. I suppose the libertarian view, as well being concerned with rights, is an optimistic take on society. We hope that it is better to get this stuff out there so we can talk about it and expose it to rational critique. It doesn't always work, of course, but the hope is that it does over the long run. In any case, it is all we have.

(To say the obvious: respecting the right to say offensive things does not mean accepting that all views are equally valid! It just means people are allowed to say things you strongly believe are stupid and offensive.)

Also - I can see there is some confusion here - my position doesn't involve complete freedom of speech, whatever that is. Obviously, I don't think you ought to be able to issue threats or incite violence and or get on the phone and repeatedly intimidate someone or hatch plots to plant bombs and so on. There are countless ways in which I believe speech ought to be constrained by the law. BUT, I don't think it ought to be constrained on the grounds that it causes offense or is highly disagreeable in some way. That opens the door to each and every government to shut down any discussion it feels is threatening or morally unpleasant.

Peace and good will to everyone else on this thread, by the way..........

[Flosshilde]

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.

Welcome from me too - I look forward to seeing future posts from you, & discovering your musical interests

[jean]

Welcome back, surely?

[french frank]

BUT, I don't think it ought to be constrained on the grounds that it causes offense or is highly disagreeable in some way. That opens the door to each and every government to shut down any discussion it feels is threatening or morally unpleasant.

On that point, we are in agreement. I reiterate (I have quoted them several times!) the words of Mr Justice Collins "Surprising as it may perhaps appear to some, the right of freedom of speech does extend to abuse." Certainly it should not be the state that dictates what may or may not be said or discussed; that is for the law while those who express their opinions must be accountable to the law and to others.

Peace and good will to everyone else on this thread, by the way..........

And to you.

[waldo]

Well, the state is the law for all intents and purposes........

[french frank]

Well, the state is the law for all intents and purposes........

One should differentiate, then, between the state and the government. Parliament is the legislature, not the government.

[P. G. Tipps]

Thank you kindly, French Frank ...

I totally understand your point of view here and I would much prefer people like Ms Iveri didn't say such horrible and nasty things about other human beings in public (even if it was her wretched husband's fault!). Apart from anything else It is all so self-defeating, as I'm sure Ms Iveri herself has now belatedly discovered.

I don't think we disagree much, it is simply where we draw the line and label some views as being 'unacceptable' in our society. Personally, I am loathe to draw the line too soon as such things can become very, very subjective and ultimately used as a tool, not least by governments. to silence people promoting views they simply find uncomfortable? That is not to say I don't find the reported comments anything other than repugnant.

In short, I don't think there is a "perfect" solution in striking a proper balance between free speech (even for idiots) and trying to prevent some for causing unnecessary offence to others. I simple prefer to 'err' on the side of free speech whilst others may well disagree. However, I certainly don't think that Ms Iveri should have been sacked for simply making stupid and disgusting comments on social media, in which case many in the UK alone could also ultimately find themselves prematurely clutching their P45s?

However, in the real world, the OP has got his wish!

[P. G. Tipps]

Welcome from me too - I look forward to seeing future posts from you, & discovering your musical interests

Thank you Flosshilde for your own kind welcome and enquiry ...

My musical tastes are both catholic and largely conservative, both with their small 'c's, I swiftly hasten to add ...

I feel confident that there is absolutely no need on my part to enquire too deeply about your own!

[waldo]

One should differentiate, then, between the state and the government. Parliament is the legislature, not the government.

I don't think there is a great deal of difference when it comes to threats to our speech. Pretty much every totalitarian government has a legislature and an executive branch and a judiciary and so on. It means nothing. It's all window dressing. There is a parliament in Russia, too, I believe. Putin tells them what laws to pass, then they pass them.

Even in the UK - the mother of all democracies! - the government of the day (the executive) has a more or less complete control of the legislature by virtue of the fact that the executive is formed from the majority party of the legislature. If the government wants to curtail our freedom (which it does all the time) there isn't really all that much to stop it - except public outrage and a threat to their popularity.

So whether we talk about parliament or the state or the government or the Emperor or the Shah or the Presidency or whatever, it really adds up to the same thing from the point of view of the citizen who is subject to their constraints. The precise locus of power varies from country to country. In some (USA), the legislature really does have plenty of clout. In others, less so. Either way, the real question is the extent to which the law (from whatever source) is used to limit freedom of expression.

[teamsaint]

Welcome from me too - I look forward to seeing future posts from you, & discovering your musical interests

his tastes, Surely.........

[french frank]

However, I certainly don't think that Ms Iveri should have been sacked for simply making stupid and disgusting comments on social media, in which case many in the UK alone could also ultimately find themselves prematurely clutching their P45s?

However, in the real world, the OP has got his wish!

Well, to widen the discussion to other areas, and supposing the Australians were more afraid of protest action, rather than genuinely 'sacking her for her opinions', when protests are threatened against other musicians for other reasons (e.g. the Jerusalem Quartet - remember the Wigmore recital? - or the Israel Phil at the Proms), should the promoters also have cancelled? That is the point, isn't it? where 'tyranny reigns' since a small minority can achieve their ends against the wishes of the majority.

[Serial_Apologist]

his tastes, Surely.........

Not his cup of tea, then?

[Flosshilde]

his tastes, Surely.........

Same difference, I think :smiley:

[Flosshilde]

Something I read in a book review today -

In 1988, during the debates in Parliament on Section 28, the offices of a gay newspaper (Capital Gay) in London were firebombed. The Conservative MP Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman said, in the House of Commons, that it was "right that there should be an intolerance of evil." The evil being (should I need to point it out) not the attempt to harm or kill people, but homosxexuality.