[QUOTE=T-Sonar.0;39228053]Um how about no. Hate speech should not be something you can freely express as a professional in the news media.
[editline]15th January 2013[/editline]
Ok someone has to say it. I don't care anymore.
Shut up. The article was not a "super intellectual joke." It was hate speech and bigotry. Stop being dumb.[/QUOTE]
And what was the harassment that preceded it?
[QUOTE=wraithcat;39227936]
On top of that, even if freedom of speech would apply in this case (which does not due to private space), freedom of speech does not grant immunity from criticism. As criticism by itself falls under freedom of speech as well. Generally speaking, a critic saying his criticism in a public space will actually have more freedom to deliver said criticism than the person saying the thing in a private space.
[/QUOTE]
I think commenters were also referring to the comments some people gave about it being taken down, pointing out their borderline contempt for free speech when it applies to an instance they do not approve of.
[editline]15th January 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=T-Sonar.0;39228053]Um how about no. Hate speech should not be something you can freely express as a professional in the news media.
[/QUOTE]
What about from an individual?
What counts as hate speech? Can it ever be deemed acceptible by society.I doubt people can come up with an objective set of criteria to determine this. We are prone to applying our culture/societal standards to them.
[QUOTE=futahorse;39228147]I think commenters were also referring to the comments some people gave about it being taken down, pointing out their borderline contempt for free speech when it applies to an instance they do not approve of.[/QUOTE]
Well that's the part that impacts against being blocked from outing your speech. Of course since this is a situation where free speech does not apply... .
[QUOTE=wraithcat;39228194]Well that's the part that impacts against being blocked from outing your speech. Of course since this is a situation where free speech does not apply... .[/QUOTE]
In a legal sense, you're right. The private establishment can do what it wants with its content. In a societal sense it should still be respected as a piece of free speech, despite disrespect of its content.
[QUOTE=futahorse;39228147]What about from an individual?
What counts as hate speech? Can it ever be deemed acceptible by society.I doubt people can come up with an objective set of criteria to determine this. We are prone to applying our culture/societal standards to them.[/QUOTE]
An individual can be fine but that doesn't mean they aren't gigantic pieces of shit.
But seriously. The last thing ANYONE needs is a place like the news media, where THOUSANDS of people come for to see article, influencing hate and misconception onto people.
[QUOTE=T-Sonar.0;39228296]An individual can be fine but that doesn't mean they aren't gigantic pieces of shit.
But seriously. The last thing ANYONE needs is a place like the news media, where THOUSANDS of people come for to see article, influencing hate and misconception onto people.[/QUOTE]
Limiting a specific outlet's speech does little to hinder that speech from finding its way to the ears of individuals. It is encumbent upon the people(not the government) to ignore or denounce the content of that speech no matter the outlet.
With the rise of digital media the standard view of news outlets has changed to the point where the line has been blurred between giants and individuals. A blog post can be as powerful as a news cast. The old guard of news sees Twitter and Facebook posts as news worthy as if validating an individul's power in the digital media.
[QUOTE=T-Sonar.0;39228296]The last thing ANYONE needs is a place like the news media, where THOUSANDS of people come for to see article, influencing hate and misconception onto people.[/QUOTE]
Fox News?
[QUOTE=Paramud;39228456]Fox News?[/QUOTE]
That can go for virtually all of the news stations, not just Fox.
[QUOTE=futahorse;39228445]Limiting a specific outlet's speech does little to hinder that speech from finding its way to the ears of individuals. It is encumbent upon the people(not the government) to ignore or denounce the content of that speech no matter the outlet.
With the rise of digital media the standard view of news outlets has changed to the point where the line has been blurred between giants and individuals. A blog post can be as powerful as a news cast. The old guard of news sees Twitter and Facebook posts as news worthy as if validating an individul's power in the digital media.[/QUOTE]
I honestly can not fathom why you think hate speech should be allowed on media outlets. I really don't.
[QUOTE=T-Sonar.0;39228053]
Ok someone has to say it. I don't care anymore.
Shut up. The article was not a "super intellectual joke." It was hate speech and bigotry. Stop being dumb.[/QUOTE]
The original article was all well and good until she made an admittedly rather ignorant joke. But to say it is hate speech and bigotry is exaggeration.
Gist of the joke: ...obsessed with getting the prefect body type - that of a Brazilian transsexual.
Now it is a pretty dumb joke because it makes the assumption that all Brazilian transsexuals have a somehow abnormal body type, so I can see how some people may have taken offence. But there was clearly some overreaction, which prompted Suzanne Moore to reply nastily on twitter etc (another stupid move there). if she'd just apologised then and there it would have reflected much better on her, but she blew it by acting like a spoilt child and becoming aggressive towards the transsexual community.
Anyway my point is the original joke was pretty stupid but to blow it out of proportion and call it hate speech and bigotry is also pretty stupid
[QUOTE=T-Sonar.0;39228504]I honestly can not fathom why you think hate speech should be allowed on media outlets. I really don't.[/QUOTE]
As long as its purpose isn't to incite violence it is still free speech. If no one cares enough to listen or support them the business will fail. Current TV had this happen. Discovery Health turned into The Oprah
Winfrey Network which is allegedly bleeding money.
Again, definitions of hate speech differ between people and to block a person's opinion from the public view using the power of government(or any power for that matter) is censorship.
[QUOTE=harryh11;39228594]The original article was all well and good until she made an admittedly rather ignorant joke. But to say it is hate speech and bigotry is exaggeration.
Gist of the joke: ...obsessed with getting the prefect body type - that of a Brazilian transsexual.
Now it is a pretty dumb joke because it makes the assumption that all Brazilian transsexuals have a somehow abnormal body type, so I can see how some people may have taken offence. But there was clearly some overreaction, which prompted Suzanne Moore to reply nastily on twitter etc (another stupid move there). if she'd just apologised then and there it would have reflected much better on her, but she blew it by acting like a spoilt child and becoming aggressive towards the transsexual community.
Anyway my point is the original joke was pretty stupid but to blow it out of proportion and call it hate speech and bigotry is also pretty stupid[/QUOTE]
something can be bigotry and or hate speech without intending for it to be you know.
Sanius squad sounds better than Sanius crew tbh
[QUOTE=T-Sonar.0;39228504]I honestly can not fathom why you think hate speech should be allowed on media outlets. I really don't.[/QUOTE]
Whether or not it [b]should[/b] happen is irrelevant. It does happen, and because they're a private organization they're within their rights to allow or deny whatever they want on their websites.
Within the confines of the law, anyways.
If it's private, they're allowed to say what they want or deny speech.
[QUOTE=Simski;39214653]I guess I've also got some social stigma about me for my verbal battles with sanius' crew and like the case with LGBT argument thread, having an unpopular opinion due to logic before emotion. They really do have a terrible tendency of putting a lot of focus on demonizing and mocking their opposition often with exaggerated claims and re-interpretations of arguments rather than focus on actually trying to teach someone how and why their opinion is wrong though, which is really my biggest reason for sometimes flipping the fuck out when trying to reason with them.[/QUOTE]
why are you going at this with melodrama? it's annoying, you're talking about some random scapegoat without any real reason
[QUOTE=Paramud;39227789]Most people view that as a violation of freedom of speech.[/QUOTE]
"my right to say the n word in public is being oppressed i like to say the n word because its so random and whack LOL"
[QUOTE=Ownederd;39229474]
"my right to say the n word in public is being oppressed i like to say the n word because its so random and whack LOL"[/QUOTE]
my mom told me to stop making dead baby jokes. um freedom of speech much??
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States]I would also like to add that there's legal precedent that your Rights are NOT absolute in the United States.[/url] But even then that doesn't matter [b]AT ALL[/b] because the Guardians is [b]NOT[/b] a Government Institution, and this terrible woman isn't being censored by the government. Inform yourself on how our laws actually work before going "This is a violation of the freedom of speech!".
[QUOTE=Ownederd;39229474]"my right to say the n word in public is being oppressed i like to say the n word because its so random and whack LOL"[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Dori;39229481]my mom told me to stop making dead baby jokes. um freedom of speech much??[/QUOTE]
Wow you guys summed up what I was saying so well good job I'm so proud of you two
-snip-
[QUOTE=QueenSasha24;39229798][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States]I would also like to add that there's legal precedent that your Rights are NOT absolute in the United States.[/url] But even then that doesn't matter [b]AT ALL[/b] because the Guardians is [b]NOT[/b] a Government Institution, and this terrible woman isn't being censored by the government. Inform yourself on how our laws actually work before going "This is a violation of the freedom of speech!".[/QUOTE]
nor is the guardian
y'know
in the united states
americans treat the fucking US constitution like they're the 10 commandments and get upset when people disagree with it, especially the first and second amendments
[QUOTE=BrainDeath;39230667]nor is the guardian
y'know
in the united states
americans treat the fucking US constitution like they're the 10 commandments and get upset when people disagree with it, especially the first and second amendments[/QUOTE]
Whats the issue with cherishing the freedoms fought for?
[QUOTE=Mingebox;39227684]Ahaha, good one.[/QUOTE]
thanks I've been considering doing stand up
I've always found it really odd that every new piece of legislation in America is judged on how consistent it is with a 200-year old document, rather than on its worth.
[QUOTE=CatFodder;39232638]I've always found it really odd that every new piece of legislation in America is judged on how consistent it is with a 200-year old document, rather than on its worth.[/QUOTE]
Ideology doesn't expire with age.
I'm going to bring this up again... and with good reason. I've received an email of the final judgement on this article from the press complaints office... and I'm appalled by the current clauses that deem an article to be allowed!
[B]Commission’s decision in the case of
Two Complainants v The Observer / The Daily Telegraph[/B]
The complainants were concerned about a comment article which responded to criticism of another columnist on social networking sites. The article had first been published by The Observer. Following The Observer’s decision to remove the article from its website, it had been republished on the website of The Daily Telegraph. The Commission received over 800 complaints about the article, which it investigated in correspondence with two lead complainants, one for each newspaper.
The complainants considered that the article contained a number of prejudicial and pejorative references to transgender people in breach of Clause 12 (Discrimination) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. They also raised concerns under Clause 1 (Accuracy) that language used by the columnist was inaccurate as well as offensive, and, furthermore that the article misleadingly suggested that the term “cis-gendered” was insulting. Additionally, concerns had been raised that the repeated use of terms of offence had breached Clause 4 (Harassment) of the Code.
The Commission first considered the complaints, framed under Clause 12, that the article had contained a number of remarks about transgender people that were pejorative and discriminatory. It noted that the Observer had accepted that these remarks were offensive, and that it had made the decision to remove the article on the basis that the language used fell outside the scope of what it considered reasonable; however, the Observer denied a breach of Clause 12 because the article had not made reference to any specific individual. Clause 12 states that newspapers “must avoid prejudicial or pejorative reference to an individual’s race, colour, religion, gender, sexual orientation or to any physical or mental illness or disability”. However, the clause does not cover references to groups or categories of people. The language used in the article did not refer to any identifiable individual, but to transgender people generally. While the Commission acknowledged the depth of the complainants’ concerns about the terminology used, in the absence of reference to a particular individual, there was no breach of Clause 12.
The Commission also considered the complaint under the terms of Clause 1, which states that “the press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures”. Complainants had suggested that the terms used in the article to refer to transgender people were inaccurate or misleading. Whilst the Commission acknowledged this concern, it was clear from the tone of the article that these terms were being used to express an opinion. Whilst many people had found this opinion deeply distasteful and upsetting, the columnist was entitled to express her views under the terms of Clause 1(iii), so long as the statements were clearly distinguished from fact. The same was true in relation to the columnist’s assertion that the term “cis-gendered” is offensive. Viewed in the context of the article as a whole, particularly in light of the fact that the article had been deliberately identified as a comment piece, this was clearly distinguishable as an expression of her opinion about the term rather than a statement of fact about how it is perceived more broadly. This did not constitute a failure to take care over the accuracy of the article, for the purposes of Clause 1(i), and neither was there any significant inaccuracy requiring correction under the terms of Clause 1(ii). There was no breach of Clause 1.
The Commission turned to consider those concerns raised under Clause 4, which states that “journalists must not engage in intimidation, harassment or persistent pursuit”. It made clear, however, that the publication of a single comment piece was not conduct which would engage the terms of Clause 4. There was no breach of the Code.
The Commission acknowledged that the complainants found much of the article offensive. Nonetheless, the terms of the Editors’ Code of Practice do not address issues of taste and offence. The Code is designed to address the potentially competing rights of freedom of expression and other rights of individuals, such as privacy. Newspapers and magazines have editorial freedom to publish what they consider to be appropriate provided that the rights of individuals – enshrined in the terms of the Code which specifically defines and protects these rights – are not compromised. It could not, therefore, comment on this aspect of the complaint further.
The guardian's a pretty good paper but the opinion section, like most others, occasionally lets some absolute shit through. I remember some guy complaining about how he didn't have any black friends in britain because none of them were cultured enough, or words to that effect.
I don't see why everyone is so upset, it's not even offensive and I say that as a proud cisgender white male.
[sp]I've seen Brazilian transsexuals, they're hotter than your average woman just sayin[/sp]
[QUOTE][QUOTE]"not having the ideal body shape – that of a Brazilian transsexual"[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
what does this even mean? Like what it is referencing to? I have never heard this expression or desire ever in my life. This whole article is so incoherent it's unbelievable
While I agree with the underlying point, the overall article is brutish and unnecessarily hostile.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.