![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsLong story short, Locus Magazine has found itself in a bit of a kerfuffle over one of it's April 1st pranks. They issued a false press releases announcing that, in the interests of inclusiveness, all guests and attendees of a feminist science fiction convention (WisCon) would be required to wear Burqas. As one can imagine people complained that the announcement was offensive to Muslims, anti-Feminist, and not particularly funny. As such it has since been taken down and replaced with an apology.
The statement's original author, Lawrence Person, retaliated by posting about the controversy and a copy of the original statement in his own blog. Regardless of one's opinion on the above there's something that cropped up in the comment section that I found interesting.
A commenter identifying herself as Barbara posted the following...
I think that I can speak for all women when I say that this very important because we cannot offend science fiction fans of other religions. The right to free speech is irrelevant to women’s rights and freedom of religion. People need to understand that being offended is a really big deal and that we should be able to make you not offend us. And science fiction cannot be sexist or minority-phobic either. This is what it is. Period.
Emphasis mine.
Now I don't know if Barbara is being serious or satirical but her comment highlighted something that has always bothered me. The belief that one has a "right" to not be offended requires one to also believe in the right to force one's ideology on another. It is, by nature, anathema to the traditional interpretation of the 1st Amendment and the whole idea of freedom of speech / religion in general. Furthermore, there seems to be a growing trend in American politics to use conspicuous displays of outrage and offense as a form of political signalling raising the obvious question of, how does one avoid offending someone who is actively looking for something to be offended about?
The simple answer is that you can't.
Admittedly this is not a "Talking Point" so much as it is a rhetorical tactic but it still ranks among the dark arts and as such it's practitioners should be called out. ;)
The statement's original author, Lawrence Person, retaliated by posting about the controversy and a copy of the original statement in his own blog. Regardless of one's opinion on the above there's something that cropped up in the comment section that I found interesting.
A commenter identifying herself as Barbara posted the following...
I think that I can speak for all women when I say that this very important because we cannot offend science fiction fans of other religions. The right to free speech is irrelevant to women’s rights and freedom of religion. People need to understand that being offended is a really big deal and that we should be able to make you not offend us. And science fiction cannot be sexist or minority-phobic either. This is what it is. Period.
Emphasis mine.
Now I don't know if Barbara is being serious or satirical but her comment highlighted something that has always bothered me. The belief that one has a "right" to not be offended requires one to also believe in the right to force one's ideology on another. It is, by nature, anathema to the traditional interpretation of the 1st Amendment and the whole idea of freedom of speech / religion in general. Furthermore, there seems to be a growing trend in American politics to use conspicuous displays of outrage and offense as a form of political signalling raising the obvious question of, how does one avoid offending someone who is actively looking for something to be offended about?
The simple answer is that you can't.
Admittedly this is not a "Talking Point" so much as it is a rhetorical tactic but it still ranks among the dark arts and as such it's practitioners should be called out. ;)
(no subject)
Date: 9/4/13 22:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 10/4/13 23:24 (UTC)...but being a bigoted asshole, in the US at least, is not against the law. It shouldn't be either for the reasons already stated in the OP. In that sense I suppose that yes, I consider her behavior acceptable even though it is unpleasant.
(no subject)
Date: 11/4/13 01:34 (UTC)I'll wait for your cite.
Furthermore, there seems to be a growing trend in American politics to use conspicuous displays of outrage and offense as a form of political signalling raising the obvious question of, how does one avoid offending someone who is actively looking for something to be offended about?
As to this jazz...
I'm curious why you think someone would go around actively looking to be offended, I'm assuming, without cause. Seems to me like a failure in the marketplace of ideas! How do you explain that?
I'll also add that Plessy went actively looking for offenses even though he was passable as white. Seems to me stands like that ought to be taken against systemic injustice. Thoreau's another good example...
So how do you avoid offending someone looking for something to be offended about? The answer is to not be so fucking offensive.
(no subject)
Date: 11/4/13 03:09 (UTC)I think the more obvious case against the woman in the video above is for harassment, as that has more to do with the aggressive manner in which the person was behaving rather than trying to prosecute a case based on the content of the language.
If she had said much the same thing without the drunken belligerence and in-your-face aggression, the case for the law getting involved would be much less persuasive, in my opinion.
(no subject)
Date: 11/4/13 05:34 (UTC)http://www.justice.gov/criminal/ceos/pressreleases/pressreleases_2008.html
Yeah at the federal level not much going on. Most obscenity laws are done at the state level though and I don't know how other states do it buttttt
https://www.google.com/search?q=nc+obscenity+arrests&aq=f&oq=nc+obscenity+arrests&aqs=chrome.0.57j60.4303j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Have at it. About 33,700,000 results (0.34 seconds)
I think the more obvious case against the woman in the video above is for harassment, as that has more to do with the aggressive manner in which the person was behaving rather than trying to prosecute a case based on the content of the language.
My state doesn't have a harassment law that would cover this kind of behavior and states are all over the place with standards soooo I don't think you are justified in saying that.
If she had said much the same thing without the drunken belligerence and in-your-face aggression, the case for the law getting involved would be much less persuasive, in my opinion.
My understanding is that in England, alcohol intoxication can be a mitigating, as well as aggravating, factor. Depending on circumstances(BAC, alcohol history...) she could conceivably been sentenced worse than she was if she were sober. She doesn't seem terribly drunk to begin with. The reason she served 10 weeks in jail was due to her prior outbursts.
(no subject)
Date: 13/4/13 00:35 (UTC)Secondly, just taking one of the stories on the first page of hits, where the teacher was prosecuted for showing obscene images from his cell phone. Presumably, he wouldn't have been prosecuted for anything if he'd only been keeping them to himself, reinforcing the idea that calling such prosecutions about the content rather than the use of it with regards to other people and invading their personal space, is probably the wrong way to describe what's being punished at least in that case. Obviously, I can't weed my way through every link hit, but I imagine there are many more that could be categorized as such.
The fact that harassment laws aren't being considered as much for the solution as speech laws, should give us pause, as trying to decipher acceptable speech is more difficult than demonstrating when doing so is quite obviously causing unrest and harassment in public. There's less potential for ridiculousness resulting, in the case of the latter.
(no subject)
Date: 13/4/13 01:10 (UTC)Might want to tell that to Google.
Secondly, just taking one of the stories on the first page of hits, where the teacher was prosecuted for showing obscene images from his cell phone. Presumably, he wouldn't have been prosecuted for anything if he'd only been keeping them to himself, reinforcing the idea that calling such prosecutions about the content rather than the use of it with regards to other people and invading their personal space, is probably the wrong way to describe what's being punished at least in that case. Obviously, I can't weed my way through every link hit, but I imagine there are many more that could be categorized as such.
Well see here's the thing. In my home state, part of what describes "harassment" has to do with its content, i.e. is it obscene? As I've already said, the Supreme Court has ruled that such things can be regulated based on their content.
The fact that harassment laws aren't being considered as much for the solution as speech laws, should give us pause, as trying to decipher acceptable speech is more difficult than demonstrating when doing so is quite obviously causing unrest and harassment in public. There's less potential for ridiculousness resulting, in the case of the latter.
Harassment isn't being considered because it generally involves one party repeatedly offending another. Often cases of hate speech are not repeat offenses by one individual against another, and thus wouldn't qualify.
(no subject)
Date: 15/4/13 20:11 (UTC)I've already addressed this in the OP and in my other reply to you.
'm curious why you think someone would go around actively looking to be offended, I'm assuming, without cause. Seems to me like a failure in the marketplace of ideas! How do you explain that?
My guess would be that they think that victim-hood gives them some form of moral authority. It could also be a simple desire to shift the blame for their own short-comings on to another but I don't know for sure.
(no subject)
Date: 11/4/13 16:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/4/13 23:13 (UTC)Her behavior is more than just "unpleasant," which is quite the tame word to use. Interesting word choice there... She was badgering and harassing. If she's going to be, as you call it, a "bigoted asshole," then she can keep that to herself in a crowded public area. She is at least guilty of disturbing the peace or some form of disorderly conduct. Laws vary by state, but I'm sure there's a charge that could stick there. And at least in her home country there was. What she did was beyond simply being "offensive." And no, it's not "acceptable."
(no subject)
Date: 15/4/13 20:21 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/4/13 11:38 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 16/4/13 18:24 (UTC)I guess it would be better to ask, what is it specifically that makes the woman's behavior objectionable? Is it her drunkenness, her belligerence, or the content of her speech?
(no subject)
Date: 17/4/13 05:51 (UTC)1. There's that saying: There's a time and place for everything. I could understand if she were in a discussion group that meets on Wednesdays, or a forum where the topic was British immigrants, or something like that. I could understand if she was a part of a demonstration of some sort (that she'd gotten a permit for, hey, the KKK does it). I could support her right to write a book or an article for some publication, even if I do not agree with her position on things. Franky, I can understand or support a lot of things I don't agree with, but she chose to cross a line.
You, and I think maybe the other person you were talking to at the bottom of the forum, seem to want something more akin to anarchy than just "freedom of speech." Anarchy is where you have absolutely no limits or boundaries, and I do not support that because it's not a good way to live. It's chaotic and it actually leads to less freedom for most people, imo. Laws exist to protect people, and good laws protect us all. This is why the laws that protect freedom of speech are good because they are meant to protect us all (now). It's also why the few limitations placed on those laws are good, because they protect us all. At least in Britain, this woman violated a law or laws that are there to protect everyone, even her.
2. Public drunkeness. I do think in some states, at least, this is a crime. But regardless of what state she could be in if she were American, I think that's objectionable for the very reason that she proved. Drunks can do a whole lot of stupid things. She at least took public transportation (maybe she doesn't have a license to drive, and if so, for good reason?). She just would not stop, probably because of her drunkeness, and there was no reasoning with her (I think the Jamaican lady tried), also probably because of her drunkeness.
3. The children. You know, it's bad enough that she was antagonizing and verbally abusing adults, but what was really sad was to see the small child cowering into her parent's arms, to hear another lady on the train/subway get upset because this woman's raving was disturbing her baby, and probably the worst and the saddest was the fact that her small boy sat there like he was used to it. That made me wonder about her parenting skills... very much. Words can hurt and stay with children... quite a lot.
Did this answer you any better?
(no subject)
Date: 11/4/13 09:51 (UTC)And which poster seems to think otherwise? You posted the vid here, so I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean the OP of this entry, I'm not sure that's the case.
(no subject)
Date: 11/4/13 12:02 (UTC)"The woman in the linked video is a bigot to be sure, and what less charitable souls would call an asshole.
...but being a bigoted asshole, in the US at least, is not against the law. It shouldn't be either for the reasons already stated in the OP. In that sense I suppose that yes, I consider her behavior acceptable even though it is unpleasant."
(no subject)
Date: 11/4/13 12:42 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/4/13 16:24 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/4/13 23:12 (UTC)