Dubai Virgin Radio Dj fired for offensive comments on god (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Il Re
- Start date
Very weak argument to use the internet as an analogy, you could use many other examples that are valid. The internet is NOT democratic.
Your average site/forum are own and ran by people, and you are there under their guidelines and supervision, its by default not a democratic entity, which is the kind of entity freedom of speech functions under. Its more or less a autocracy, whoever runs that sites has the right to deal with his site the way he wishes to (restrict the freedom of speech, because he she does not want this or that being said etc), and you agree to adher to his authority when signing up, its that simple.
Your average site/forum are own and ran by people, and you are there under their guidelines and supervision, its by default not a democratic entity, which is the kind of entity freedom of speech functions under. Its more or less a autocracy, whoever runs that sites has the right to deal with his site the way he wishes to (restrict the freedom of speech, because he she does not want this or that being said etc), and you agree to adher to his authority when signing up, its that simple.
Believe it or not, I took your point seriously. And if it makes you feel better, it took me a while to come up with an argument, cause it seemed like you had a point. 
Here's the thing. You have the right to insult an individual. But to a point. I don't think you could get away with buying tv advertising to bash someone round the clock. Furthermore, defamation laws say that you cannot bash someone by saying untrue things. I guess a possible strategy would be to say nasty things about someone, saying it not as fact but as opinion, then you wouldn't have to prove that it's true. Still, I'm not sure how far you could go with it.
What you cannot do is insult someone (as in you could be sued over it) using slurs. The way this method of insult works is that you summon an opinion about a particular group (not just one person) and use this as a means to offend. This is not judged on the same basis, because you are reinforcing discrimination against a particular group. So I could say "Fred sucks", but I couldn't say "Fred sucks as all Libyans do".
Now to your point about god. god is not a person who has rights in the legal system. What's more, people do not have rights on behalf of god, which, what I guess, is what you want. If you think about it, this makes a lot of sense, because if you really wanted to have a law that would protect people from insults targeted at things they care about, then noone would be able to say anything. Dominic couldn't say "god is a cunt" and you couldn't say "Tottenham sucks", because someone would be insulted on behalf of Tottenham. Of course, that isn't to say it's in good taste to say "Tottenham sucks", and I'm sure you wouldn't say it if you knew that the people who heard this would be insulted (just like the radio dj probably should have known better). But legally, there is nothing keeping you from doing it.
So Rab can say "Zlatan sucks", he gets in trouble for saying "Zlatan is a gypsy" because that reinforces discrimination. He probably also couldn't say "God is a gypsy" for the same reason.
Here's the thing. You have the right to insult an individual. But to a point. I don't think you could get away with buying tv advertising to bash someone round the clock. Furthermore, defamation laws say that you cannot bash someone by saying untrue things. I guess a possible strategy would be to say nasty things about someone, saying it not as fact but as opinion, then you wouldn't have to prove that it's true. Still, I'm not sure how far you could go with it.
What you cannot do is insult someone (as in you could be sued over it) using slurs. The way this method of insult works is that you summon an opinion about a particular group (not just one person) and use this as a means to offend. This is not judged on the same basis, because you are reinforcing discrimination against a particular group. So I could say "Fred sucks", but I couldn't say "Fred sucks as all Libyans do".
Now to your point about god. god is not a person who has rights in the legal system. What's more, people do not have rights on behalf of god, which, what I guess, is what you want. If you think about it, this makes a lot of sense, because if you really wanted to have a law that would protect people from insults targeted at things they care about, then noone would be able to say anything. Dominic couldn't say "god is a cunt" and you couldn't say "Tottenham sucks", because someone would be insulted on behalf of Tottenham. Of course, that isn't to say it's in good taste to say "Tottenham sucks", and I'm sure you wouldn't say it if you knew that the people who heard this would be insulted (just like the radio dj probably should have known better). But legally, there is nothing keeping you from doing it.
So Rab can say "Zlatan sucks", he gets in trouble for saying "Zlatan is a gypsy" because that reinforces discrimination. He probably also couldn't say "God is a gypsy" for the same reason.
Believe it or not, I took your point seriously. And if it makes you feel better, it took me a while to come up with an argument, cause it seemed like you had a point.
Here's the thing. You have the right to insult an individual. But to a point. I don't think you could get away with buying tv advertising to bash someone round the clock. Furthermore, defamation laws say that you cannot bash someone by saying untrue things. I guess a possible strategy would be to say nasty things about someone, saying it not as fact but as opinion, then you wouldn't have to prove that it's true. Still, I'm not sure how far you could go with it.
What you cannot do is insult someone (as in you could be sued over it) using slurs. The way this method of insult works is that you summon an opinion about a particular group (not just one person) and use this as a means to offend. This is not judged on the same basis, because you are reinforcing discrimination against a particular group. So I could say "Fred sucks", but I couldn't say "Fred sucks as all Libyans do".
Now to your point about god. god is not a person who has rights in the legal system. What's more, people do not have rights on behalf of god, which, what I guess, is what you want. If you think about it, this makes a lot of sense, because if you really wanted to have a law that would protect people from insults targeted at things they care about, then noone would be able to say anything. Dominic couldn't say "god is a cunt" and you couldn't say "Tottenham sucks", because someone would be insulted on behalf of Tottenham. Of course, that isn't to say it's in good taste to say "Tottenham sucks", and I'm sure you wouldn't say it if you knew that the people who heard this would be insulted (just like the radio dj probably should have known better). But legally, there is nothing keeping you from doing it.
So Rab can say "Zlatan sucks", he gets in trouble for saying "Zlatan is a gypsy" because that reinforces discrimination. He probably also couldn't say "God is a gypsy" for the same reason.
Here's the thing. You have the right to insult an individual. But to a point. I don't think you could get away with buying tv advertising to bash someone round the clock. Furthermore, defamation laws say that you cannot bash someone by saying untrue things. I guess a possible strategy would be to say nasty things about someone, saying it not as fact but as opinion, then you wouldn't have to prove that it's true. Still, I'm not sure how far you could go with it.
What you cannot do is insult someone (as in you could be sued over it) using slurs. The way this method of insult works is that you summon an opinion about a particular group (not just one person) and use this as a means to offend. This is not judged on the same basis, because you are reinforcing discrimination against a particular group. So I could say "Fred sucks", but I couldn't say "Fred sucks as all Libyans do".
Now to your point about god. god is not a person who has rights in the legal system. What's more, people do not have rights on behalf of god, which, what I guess, is what you want. If you think about it, this makes a lot of sense, because if you really wanted to have a law that would protect people from insults targeted at things they care about, then noone would be able to say anything. Dominic couldn't say "god is a cunt" and you couldn't say "Tottenham sucks", because someone would be insulted on behalf of Tottenham. Of course, that isn't to say it's in good taste to say "Tottenham sucks", and I'm sure you wouldn't say it if you knew that the people who heard this would be insulted (just like the radio dj probably should have known better). But legally, there is nothing keeping you from doing it.
So Rab can say "Zlatan sucks", he gets in trouble for saying "Zlatan is a gypsy" because that reinforces discrimination. He probably also couldn't say "God is a gypsy" for the same reason.
it's a shame martin, that they read such carefully constructed rationales and completely ignore them
Forza Freedom to Insult!
You guys believe in no God. You have no culture. You have friends who you will lose touch with in a few years. You'll move out of your parents’ house (if you haven't already) and will gradually stop talking to them...maybe once or twice a year. You'll get married, divorce after a couple of years. You'll try it again and you'll have a couple of children who'll grow up not really liking you. You'll divorce again and you'll find happiness at the bottom of a bottle. You'll eventually be placed in an old home because your kids won't want to take care of you. You poor souls, enjoy your freedom of speech...that's all ya got!
You guys believe in no God. You have no culture. You have friends who you will lose touch with in a few years. You'll move out of your parents’ house (if you haven't already) and will gradually stop talking to them...maybe once or twice a year. You'll get married, divorce after a couple of years. You'll try it again and you'll have a couple of children who'll grow up not really liking you. You'll divorce again and you'll find happiness at the bottom of a bottle. You'll eventually be placed in an old home because your kids won't want to take care of you. You poor souls, enjoy your freedom of speech...that's all ya got!
Swag is absolutely correct. Some of biggest biggots and cheats go to church every sunday. Muslims that blow themselves up are generally the most "religious" of there population. George W. Bush thinks God talks to him on a regular basis and he's a terrible person. Ron and Dan Lafferty killed people because god told them too. Catholics and protestants killing each other in britain. All of these examples of religious people. Just because you believe in God or go to church doesn't make you a better person than anyone else. It's your actions that reflect morality.
Actually Sally, it's been ok to joke about 911 since Rudy Giuliani wore it's significance out.
All joking aside I see what you mean. In the same way you can't expect someone to check their morals or beliefs at the door. The US doesn't have a national religion, in fact the US constitution is very much against the advocation of any particular religion, though it does protect the practice at all.
That said, the atmosphere is very different from that of the Middle East. Meaning the majority religion is Christianity. I don't expect Muslims to leave their prayer rugs and beliefs in customs when they come the states. At the same time, other countries shouldn't expect foreigners to completely assimilate to their culture. Tolerance is a two way process. A give and a take. If anything we, as a global society, should welcome controversy. Controversy breeds discussion. From discussion we evolve as a people through change.
When Imus had his Bob Dole moment, though I didn't agree with his comments or his firing, I was happy it happened. It brought race into discussion in the United States, which is a good thing because we have a race problem. The same could be said for the Middle East. While race my not be the issue, there could be something else worth changing.
All joking aside I see what you mean. In the same way you can't expect someone to check their morals or beliefs at the door. The US doesn't have a national religion, in fact the US constitution is very much against the advocation of any particular religion, though it does protect the practice at all.
That said, the atmosphere is very different from that of the Middle East. Meaning the majority religion is Christianity. I don't expect Muslims to leave their prayer rugs and beliefs in customs when they come the states. At the same time, other countries shouldn't expect foreigners to completely assimilate to their culture. Tolerance is a two way process. A give and a take. If anything we, as a global society, should welcome controversy. Controversy breeds discussion. From discussion we evolve as a people through change.
When Imus had his Bob Dole moment, though I didn't agree with his comments or his firing, I was happy it happened. It brought race into discussion in the United States, which is a good thing because we have a race problem. The same could be said for the Middle East. While race my not be the issue, there could be something else worth changing.
Well you could, but if the things you were saying were crude and mean the backlash of the majority might be enough to make you think twice about repeating your statements. But considering this is an internet forum, you're analogy wears thin since there are no real world consequences.
A better example would be the KKK in the United States. They reserve the right to gather on public land and say whatever they like. Their message is not too popular among the majority, so generally when the KKK gets together and has a public rally the people who don't like them have a bigger one and the KKK goes home.
A better example would be the KKK in the United States. They reserve the right to gather on public land and say whatever they like. Their message is not too popular among the majority, so generally when the KKK gets together and has a public rally the people who don't like them have a bigger one and the KKK goes home.