U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Anti-Gay Funeral Protesters

[DVV]

But it was very lovely ,Robert ,to see Elton and his partner so overjoyed with their beautiful baby!

Yes, Norma.

And when dwarves will win the NBA, it'll be even more lovely.

Cheers !

[c.d.]

With all due respect to Sir Elton John, I think it might be time to bring this thread back on topic.

c.d.

[Fleetwood Mac]

So what sort of country do you want? One in which people sat whatever they wish - where ever they wish? Do you want people to have the freedom to be offensive to others just because they don't like the colour of their skin or their religious beliefs or their sexual preferences?

Yes, I do. The strength of an idea is underpinned by its merits, as opposed to banning the alternative idea. It doesn't matter how much you find a person's opinions to be distasteful surely the very least a human being can expect is to be able to speak freely.

I prefer Kant's approach over Bentham's Utilitarianism. And John Locke was wide of the mark when he advocated tolerance with one caveat: intolerance of intolerance. Shame really as he's spot on in much of what he conceived.

A spread of ideas is healthy, as is individual expression, and perhaps we have come to be consumer machines just buying and selling stuff precisely because of this denial of individual expression

How about this story - a mother was living alone with her two teenage children after the death of her husband. Her daughter had physical and mental disabilities and the family became the target of a gang of local residents who bombarded their house with dog mess and bricks. They were verbally abused because the gang thought they had the right to call the daughter offensive names because of her disabilities. They didn't like disabled people you see. They thought she should have been drowned at birth because her appearance offended them and they said so. After years of abuse the mother drove herelf and her daughter to a quiet layby and burnt them both to death in the car. Now this happened in a country where the behaviour against the family was illegal but permitted to continue. What on earth might happen if complete freedom of speech was allowed?

Sad, but one anecdote doesn't make a summer. What about the billions of times someone has hurled racist, sexist, homophobic abuse at someone and nothing has come of it.

As I said before, you will go a long way to find someone as tolerant as I am, and I'm as in tune as you can be with Cultural Relativism without actually condoning the stoning of women, but never, ever at the expense of individual expression.

[Chris]

As I said before, you will go a long way to find someone as tolerant as I am, and I'm as in tune as you can be with Cultural Relativism without actually condoning the stoning of women, but never, ever at the expense of individual expression.

It doesn't occur to you that anything short of actually stoning people interferes with their "individual expression" then?

[Fleetwood Mac]

It doesn't occur to you that anything short of actually stoning people interferes with their "individual expression" then?

You'll have to put some meat on the bones of this one. I'm only a simple lad, sp not quite following you. What d'ya mean?

[Natalie Severn]

Well I have long been a supporter of children"s rights.However I would draw the line at letting each pupil give vent to abusive and offensive "freedom of speech" because it was part of their basic individual rights.If this was the case that pupils were to express in complete freedom racist, homophobic and sexist attitudes ---including the right to be insulting to people with disabilities or mental health problems, then it would be impossible to teach children in class groups at all because there would be war in the classroom, with pupils probably deciding they had the right to bring weapons into school and get rid of the people they disliked by force . Take it to its logical conclusion.Where do you draw the line?

[Chris]

You'll have to put some meat on the bones of this one. I'm only a simple lad, sp not quite following you. What d'ya mean?

Simple? With all this talk of Kant, Bentham, Locke and "Cultural Relativism"? Surely not.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Well I have long been a supporter of children"s rights.However I would draw the line at letting each pupil give vent to abusive and offensive "freedom of speech" because it was part of their basic individual rights.If this was the case that pupils were to express in complete freedom racist, homophobic and sexist attitudes ---including the right to be insulting to people with disabilities or mental health problems, then it would be impossible to teach children in class groups at all because there would be war in the classroom, with pupils probably deciding they had the right to bring weapons into school and get rid of the people they disliked by force . Take it to its logical conclusion.Where do you draw the line?

We have all sorts of laws regulating the behaviour and development of children. I think that, as a society, we accept that children's behaviour should be regulated in ways not applicable to adults.

[Natalie Severn]

But can you give a well thought out reason why school pupils should be denied "freedom of speech" and treated any differently from other people---surely it isn"t just because they have smaller bones for example?

[Fleetwood Mac]

But can you give a well thought out reason why school pupils should be denied "freedom of speech" and treated any differently from other people---surely it isn"t just because they have smaller bones for example?

I would have thought for exactly the same reason as we have laws around age of consent etc. Ultimately, a child is deemed to need adult supervision in many areas of his/her life until he/she reaches a certain age and is left to stand on his/her own two feet. I suppose my argument is that I agree with the accepted wisdom that children need the supervision of teachers/parents to regulate their behaviour.

The other factor is that the line is drawn in the classroom because it is a designated place of learning driven by a national curriculum, and that comes complete with certain requirements i.e. children will be together for at least year, and so they have to follow the courtesy rules in the interests of group learning. In contrast, adults are free to walk away from any situation if they don't like waht they see and join another group.

[Limehouse]

We have all sorts of laws regulating the behaviour and development of children. I think that, as a society, we accept that children's behaviour should be regulated in ways not applicable to adults.

But don't you see that if children witness adults behaving in a certain way and indulging in 'freedom of speech' that embraced offensive insults towards other people - children would feel free to do the same.

I am not in favour of total supression of ideas and opinions - but I feel that the law has to protect the vulnerable and it has also to protect people's identities.

You see - in the past - this freedom of speech has been used to establish certain 'truths' that have been believed by others and terrible things have been done in the name of these 'truths'. For example - Hitler deemed that Jewish people were 'pigs' - that homosexualks were deviants - that people with disabilities were 'tainted' and he convicned people that these things were true and that these people should die in order for the master race to survive.

Even today - people use 'freedom of speech' to suggest such things as 'black people are less intelligent that white people' or 'non-Muslims are immoral and unholdy and should convert or die' or 'Muslims are all dangerous terrorists' or 'homosexuals are sinful' and in the name of these 'truths' that have been distributed via 'freedom of speech' people go out and abuse and cause offense and even kill.

We expect adults who are given gifts such as the 'freedom of speech' to act in a responsible and and repectful way - but sadly many cannot.

[Fleetwood Mac]

But don't you see that if children witness adults behaving in a certain way and indulging in 'freedom of speech' that embraced offensive insults towards other people - children would feel free to do the same.

Course I do.

But I'll bring you back to my original comment: there is a great deal of value in tolerance, but not at the expense of individual expression.

Now, assuming we agree that there is no such world as a perfect world, and assuming we agree that there are pros and cons associated with both enforcing tolerance and allowing freedom of expression, then you have to go with the one you believe to be more fundamental to human existence. I go for freedom of expression (excluding children in a classroom), although I accept that there are problems with this in practice - as said no such thing as a perfect world.

It's a really a matter of coercion versus voluntary association. To me, it's more important to succeed of fail off your own back, than to be forced into someone else's version of success.


I am not in favour of total supression of ideas and opinions - but I feel that the law has to protect the vulnerable and it has also to protect people's identities.

You see - in the past - this freedom of speech has been used to establish certain 'truths' that have been believed by others and terrible things have been done in the name of these 'truths'. For example - Hitler deemed that Jewish people were 'pigs' - that homosexualks were deviants - that people with disabilities were 'tainted' and he convicned people that these things were true and that these people should die in order for the master race to survive.

Even today - people use 'freedom of speech' to suggest such things as 'black people are less intelligent that white people' or 'non-Muslims are immoral and unholdy and should convert or die' or 'Muslims are all dangerous terrorists' or 'homosexuals are sinful' and in the name of these 'truths' that have been distributed via 'freedom of speech' people go out and abuse and cause offense and even kill.

We expect adults who are given gifts such as the 'freedom of speech' to act in a responsible and and repectful way - but sadly many cannot.[/QUOTE]

[Natalie Severn]

If adults are allowed the sort of "freedom of speech" that has been advocated here that includes the abusive picketing of a family funeral for a dead service person , then I see no logical reason why you should want to deny "freedom of speech" to children.Such an attitude is inconsistent ,arbitrary and oppressive to young people.After all what they might do with their "freedom of speech" couldn"t get much worse than this ,in my opinion.

[Fleetwood Mac]

If adults are allowed the sort of "freedom of speech" that has been advocated here that includes the abusive picketing of a family funeral for a dead service person , then I see no logical reason why you should want to deny "freedom of speech" to children.Such an attitude is inconsistent ,arbitrary and oppressive to young people.After all what they might do with their "freedom of speech" couldn"t get much worse than this ,in my opinion.

To me, it is your position that is arbitrary.

You want to make a judgement call on what people should or shouldn't say.

In contrast, I don't.

My take on children in a classroom is nothing to do with which is 'worse' or any perceived outcome; it is to do with the generally accepted view in the Western World that children do not consent in the same way adults do (informed consent, that is).

If you can't see that teachers have certain responsibilities to children, i.e. responsibilities that do not apply to adults, then we see it very differently. With regard to adults, it is accepted that only the government through the rule of law has any governance over the life of an adult and that the government has no place in matters of conscience; whereas children, due to age, and vulnerability, are subject to regulation. That dividing line between children and adults is pretty much universally accepted.

[Robert]

Isn't it Jeremy Bentham who needs some meat put on his bones? The guy hasn't eaten in nearly 200 years. Wait till his mum gets hold of him!