Sack this revolting specimen

[Maclintick]

Sorry Waldo, but I find your faux-libertarian & oh-so-reasonable apologia for Tamar Iveri’s published expressions of anti-gay incitement to be tendentious hogwash. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, or deliberately ignored the earlier posts pointing it out, but in many legal jurisdictions there are statutes limiting what masquerades in your argument as “freedom of expression”. These laws are not there by accident or a conspiracy of the powerful against the weak, but in the UK and many other countries to balance the rights versus the responsibilities of citizens in civil society. Nowhere is there a universal law guaranteeing freedom to say what you like or urge violence against those of whom you disapprove, not even in the US which boasts the enviable First Amendment.

You assert that “Resorting to a "commonsense" or "community" standard just doesn't do the job”. Well, what else would, then ? We live in communities and under the rule of law. Tamar Iveri may have the freedom to publicly approve of violence towards certain members of society in Tbilisi or Kampala, but not necessarily in London or Sydney.

Curious that your defence of Iveri extends to presuming what she might now say in exculpation, rather than what she did say.

[Serial_Apologist]

You seem to have missed the point of my arguments, Serial Apologist. The rights which gay people have to say whatever they wish are the same rights which their opponents have. If we take away the freedom of their opponents, you also take away the freedom of gay people. They are one and the same. Gay people may not wish to praise violence against heterosexuals, but they have the right to do so and, of course, they have the right to praise violence in other circumstances, too: against the Ugandan police force, for instance. Or a Nazi organisation which has taken control of the government........

The problem you seem to have here is that you seem to think that it is possible to define a neutral, objective ground from which it is possible to curtail the rights of one group without simultaneously undermining the basis upon which you ascribe rights to others. It isn't possible, unfortunately. When you take out the gag, the gag is out for everyone else too. You may feel that your views and opinions are just too commendable to ever be threatened, but others in the world may not see it that way. That is what I meant be competing views of the good life. I am not claiming that homophobes get to define this view for everyone else, only that they have one too - just as everyone else does. If we take away their right to articulate it, then it is not obvious why we have the right to articulate ours, either.

So, I take it you believe there is no line to be drawn, then. Amazing. If I am wrong and there IS a line to be drawn, where is that line? We're not talking hypotherical here, either: there is a prominent woman in the arts addressing potentially millions of people through a mass medium saying its all right to terrorise gay people. I would rightly be arrested for so doing in a British shopping precinct.

[richardfinegold]

richardfinegold

Absolutely, and eloquently written. Nothing more to add. :ok:

Well Nick we appear to be in the minority here. Most forumites seem to believe that the right to free speech-regardless of the content of the speech--trumps any other consideration.
Waldo's post is thoughtful, but IMO adds nothing new to the discussion. I had already stated that the 'right' to silence free but inciteful speech is a right that can easily be abused (theat was the point of my McCain/Obama example). No argument there. Where I have a problem with Waldo is with this statement of his:

There is indeed a hard, technical sense in which one can incite violence (There they are! Go get 'em boys! Here's the noose!), but it demands far more than simply supporting or approving a particular course of action. It must (at the very least) involve a direct chain of causation to the ultimate act of violence.



Waldo seems to be stating here, for example, that one would have to prove that the publication Mein Kampff led directly to Aushwitz, and that the standards of proof would have to be the same as are required by a Court of Law in a a Free Society. There are many problems with this.

First, from a pragmatic point of view, it doesn't help the people wil ultimately suffer. Do we need the bashed in skulls of 30 Gay Georgians as a reason to condemn Iveri's statements, or are we allowed to be more proactive in proscribing it?

Second, one can almost never draw a direct link between a certain speech or writing and subsequent specific acts of violence. The speech, or harmful thoughts, create a general milieu that stirs hatreds and provides the climate for an environment that sanctions violence against groups, rather than the direct causal link. This does not mean that as a society we are powerless to act. We do not need to decide that the standards should be that of a court of law. As a matter of Pubic Policy, we can lower the bar.
Third, Waldo seems concerned with the fact that people expressing the hateful thoughts are in the minority, and are therefore are at risk of being exploited by the majority. However, ideas which may seem "out there" have a way of becoming mainstream. I refer Waldo to Malcolm Gladwell's book "The Tipping Point"
for an excellent discussion of how this occurs. Take the example of Rwanda. Most Hutus may not have had love for their Tutsi compatriots, but they would not have dreamed of grabbing machetes and hacking them to death until a sustained propaganda incitement was launched on the State Radio.
No doubt comparing a pipsqueak like Iveri to Genocidal regimens strikes many as hyperbole. I suspect that many who have read this post to this point are rolling thier eyes. However, it is much easier to snuff out violent incitements in their embryonic form, than attempting to abort them after they have reached a critical mass.
I don't expect any one to be converted by this post, nick, but felt that waldo's points should not go unanswered. At the end, those who believe that free speech rights, regardless of content, are paramount will still hold those view; and those who believe certain content is beyond the pail of what is commonly deemed permissable, and therefore is subject to being proscribed, will continue to believe that.

[jean]

...The rights which gay people have to say whatever they wish are the same rights which their opponents have. If we take away the freedom of their opponents, you also take away the freedom of gay people...

Hardly exactly the same!

I don't think many gay people want the freedom to vilify and threaten straight people - and if there are any who do, I am reasonably certain that most other gay people would support their not being allowed to do so.

[waldo]

Sorry Waldo, but I find your faux-libertarian & oh-so-reasonable apologia for Tamar Iveri’s published expressions of anti-gay incitement to be tendentious hogwash. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, or deliberately ignored the earlier posts pointing it out, but in many legal jurisdictions there are statutes limiting what masquerades in your argument as “freedom of expression”. These laws are not there by accident or a conspiracy of the powerful against the weak, but in the UK and many other countries to balance the rights versus the responsibilities of citizens in civil society. Nowhere is there a universal law guaranteeing freedom to say what you like or urge violence against those of whom you disapprove, not even in the US which boasts the enviable First Amendment.

You assert that “Resorting to a "commonsense" or "community" standard just doesn't do the job”. Well, what else would, then ? We live in communities and under the rule of law. Tamar Iveri may have the freedom to publicly approve of violence towards certain members of society in Tbilisi or Kampala, but not necessarily in London or Sydney.

Curious that your defence of Iveri extends to presuming what she might now say in exculpation, rather than what she did say.

By all means disagree with me, but why do you have to be so rude about it? Faux-libertarian? Why faux? Because it sounds insulting? Because it implies my position is pretentious? How would you know if it was? What do you know about me?

In any case, in partial response to your post: I think you will find that in America there is a right to "urge violence against" others. Right this minute, many thousands of people are urging the President to bomb Iraq. I believe that is a pretty clear cut case of urging violence against others........perhaps they ought not to be allowed to have this discussion, though. Perhaps someone should silence them.

If you believe that we should resort to "community" standards in this matter then you open yourself to a pernicious form of relativism which undermines just about everything you have said. If the community gets to decide, then the community must always be right. (Since there is no other standard, as you say). In that case, it is not easy to see how we could ever argue for the rights of minorities in their own oppressive communities. Let the Russian community decide how to treat gay people: what other standard is there?

In addition, your focus on the legal aspect of this issue is entirely beside the point since we are talking about what kind of rights people have irrespective of those currently recognised in law. If we simply stuck to the law (and had no other standard), it is hard to understand how we would ever be entitled to argue for changes to the law. That would require a conceptualisation of rights which transcends the narrow limits of legal definitions.

These are standard positions in the philosophy of law, by the way. I assume your own particular expertise lies in other directions.

[waldo]

Hardly exactly the same!

I don't think many gay people want the freedom to vilify and threaten straight people - and if there are any who do, I am reasonably certain that most other gay people would support their not being allowed to do so.

Threat is quite different. I don't believe anyone was threatened in that article she wrote.

Are you really claiming that no-one has the right to approve of violence against others? Or to say that other people are disgusting or revolting and so on? Is it ever permitted to make negative claims about other people or other groups?

The problem you face (for the last time!) is that you can't provide special exemption for one group, while also recognising that right in other circumstances. Do we have the right to (verbally) attack the Pope, or to say nasty things about Obama or to praise violence against a rogue group in Iraq or a totalitarian dictator in Syria? If we do have this right, then so does Tamar Iveris to say what she said about gay people. If, on the other hand, gay people get special protection from "repugnant" comments, then so does everyone else: including all the horrible people and groups out there who we do, in fact, want to say bad things about. That's an awful lot of views and opinions which cannot, by your arguments, even be uttered - let alone debated.

[amateur51]

Threat is quite different. I don't believe anyone was threatened in that article she wrote.

Are you really claiming that no-one has the right to approve of violence against others? Or to say that other people are disgusting or revolting and so on? Is it ever permitted to make negative claims about other people or other groups?

The problem you face (for the last time!) is that you can't provide special exemption for one group, while also recognising that right in other circumstances. Do we have the right to (verbally) attack the Pope, or to say nasty things about Obama or to praise violence against a rogue group in Iraq or a totalitarian dictator in Syria? If we do have this right, then so does Tamar Iveris to say what she said about gay people. If, on the other hand, gay people get special protection from "repugnant" comments, then so does everyone else: including all the horrible people and groups out there who we do, in fact, want to say bad things about. That's an awful lot of views and opinions which cannot, by your arguments, even be uttered - let alone debated.

Is there a difference between criticising/vilifying powerful people and people who have been victims of vilification and worse for generations?

[waldo]

Third, Waldo seems concerned with the fact that people expressing the hateful thoughts are in the minority, and are therefore are at risk of being exploited by the majority.

Quite the contrary! One of the reasons I am so keen to stress the inviolability of our rights is precisely the fact that a "hateful" majority may find itself in power. My position allows me to argue for the protection of the minority (gay people on Russia, for instance) because I recognise that they have rights which no government can take away from them. No-one can step forward and say that common sense or tradition or community standards demand that they remove those rights, because I do not believe that our rights are rooted in such transient, unstable stuff in the first place. No-one can say that they are inciting violence or writing books which will eventually lead to terrible harm because I do not accept that our rights can be undermined in this way.

On the other hand, if you don't accept my position, it is not clear how you are ever going to protect the rights of minorities you claim to care about in the first place........

[Serial_Apologist]

Is there a difference between criticising/vilifying powerful people and people who have been victims of vilification and worse for generations?

Especially those who have never, ever done any harm to anybody else? At least, not to MY knowledge, despite what Daddy told me!

[amateur51]

Especially those who have never, ever done any harm to anybody else? At least, not to MY knowledge, despite what Daddy told me!

Quite so! :smooch:

[Serial_Apologist]

Quite the contrary! One of the reasons I am so keen to stress the inviolability of our rights is precisely the fact that a "hateful" majority may find itself in power. My position allows me to argue for the protection of the minority (gay people on Russia, for instance) because I recognise that they have rights which no government can take away from them. No-one can step forward and say that common sense or tradition or community standards demand that they remove those rights, because I do not believe that our rights are rooted in such transient, unstable stuff in the first place. No-one can say that they are inciting violence or writing books which will eventually lead to terrible harm because I do not accept that our rights can be undermined in this way.

On the other hand, if you don't accept my position, it is not clear how you are ever going to protect the rights of minorities you claim to care about in the first place........

But we're not talking in general terms here. Why would anybody "in their right mind" want to harm gays, or advocate their harming? Surely civilisation, if it is to mean anything, comes to see through such agencies of hostile inculcations for what they represent? How can one equate their hapless targets with genuine endangerments rightfully worthy of criticism, nay condemnation and hostility? I really don't see the points you're making as carte blanche applicable in the way you argue.

[LeMartinPecheur]

But we're not talking in general terms here. Why would anybody "in their right mind" want to harm gays, or advocate their harming? Surely civilisation, if it is to mean anything, comes to see through such agencies of hostile inculcations for what they represent? How can one equate their hapless targets with genuine endangerments rightfully worthy of criticism, nay condemnation and hostility? I really don't see the points you're making as carte blanche applicable in the way you argue.

It is possible that the lady singer with whom this thread started really does believe that gay sexuality is a choice, and that if too many people are persuaded to make that choice, her society will in some objective way 'fall apart'. (Nobody has children any more so there's no one to care for the elderly, nobody in a century or two even to populate the sacred homeland.) And then there's religious belief - she may feel that too many gays will bring the wrath of God down on the 'innocent & god-fearing'.

I'm not arguing that such beliefs validate (in my terms) her apparent wish to kill gays, just pointing out that she may have beliefs underpinning her pronouncements that make the matter a little more complex than your encapsulation 'Why would anybody "in their right mind" want to harm gays, or advocate their harming?'

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Threat is quite different. I don't believe anyone was threatened in that article she wrote.

But she (or her husband in her name) does support those who have actually physically and violently attacked others

often, in certain cases, it is necessary to break jaws in order to be appreciated as a nation
I am proud of the fact how Georgian society spat at the parade
those who attacked the parade were Georgian youth of pure blood, still unspoiled by the "Westernized" tolerant reforms initiated by the Georgian President, who had condemned the violence against the Parade.

Giving support to those who use violence against unarmed, peaceful demonstrators is encouraging, supporting (or "inciting") further such acts, isn't it?


"Freedom of speech" means that she is entitled to voice her opinions about the sensitivity of holding the Parade on such a day in such a vicinity - because this view can be publicly discussed and views to the contrary put forward; positions explained, and some sort of tolerance of conflicting opinions reached on both sides.

She is even entitled to describe LGBTs as "deviant faecal matter" - that merely reflects on her own abominable, petty mindset, and works against her foetid opinions.

But calling out "go on, stick the boot in" isn't an exercise of "free speech" - it's encouraging violence.

[french frank]

But calling out "go on, stick the boot in" isn't an exercise of "free speech" - it's encouraging violence.

But, on what basis is encouraging violence 'wrong'? (I'm trying to work out the answer, not defending the action!).

For waldo: “I do not believe that our rights are rooted in such transient, unstable stuff [common sense, tradition, community standards &c]”. Where are they rooted then?

[amateur51]

And then there's religious belief - she may feel that too many gays will bring the wrath of God down on the 'innocent & god-fearing'.

Well that's the problem with religious belief, isn't it. I don't/can't subscribe to it and yet my world is required to be proscribed by her promoting her religious belief.

Bonkers.