The freedom to offend
Published:
January 25, 2015 at 1:08pm
“They have killed cartoonists who have done nothing more than draw drawings which they so happen to find offensive. At the end of the day, in a free society people have to be free to offend each other. You cannot have freedom unless people are free to offend each other. We have no right not to be offended. And that fundamental principle of being free to offend people is exactly what was under threat by these murderous barbarians.”
– UK Deputy Prime Minster and Liberal-Democrat Party leader Nick Clegg, speaking during an LBC radio phone-in show.
22 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Does this post contradict your claim for comment moderation by Malta Today?
[Daphne – No, it doesn’t. My post is about newspapers which need to protect their brand. It is not an argument against the comments, but an argument against those comments appearing on a newspaper website. There are other sites where those people can post them, which are far more appropriate and where they won’t damage a newspaper that is already doing a pretty good job of damaging itself.]
Clegg’s view is only one way of looking at it.
Here’s another view:
“Charlie Hebdo is the very image of the European atheist society which creates enmity and distress instead of respect and brotherhood among peoples and men, regardless of their differences, race, color, religion. I denounce justly this sterile attempt to bring about national unity and I denounce the hypocrisy of the citizens who have never read this humor publication and who have always criticized the weekly. To honor the victims, yes. Honour Charlie Hebdo, no.”
See: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3245820/posts
[Daphne – Clegg spoke about the freedom to offend. This person speaks about taking offence. They are not different views. They are different subjects.]
So we are supposed to distinguish between the rights of the offender and the offended?
[Daphne – It is the exact same right. Please at least try to work it out. I have the right to cause you offence; you have the right to protest. And vice versa.]
Using the same logic, you can conclude Clegg is arguing for a right to steal because this is balanced by a right to complain about having been robbed. – Let’s take this one step further: Would Clegg be arguing for a right to kill? I don’t think so.
[Daphne – ‘Using the same logic’: actually, no, using no logic at all. The right to cause offence is vested in/derived from the right to freedom of expression. There is no concomitant right not to be caused offence because this means shutting others up, which is in direct conflict with the right to freedom of expression. You can use the same right to freedom of expression to protest that you are upset and why. This is not the same thing as preventing others from saying something which upsets you. You have the right to freedom of worship and the right to freedom of expression. They are enough for your purposes as a civilised member of society.]
Back to my post, the subject is the same but there are some very different opinions about this Charlie campaign and I don’t think it’s about legal semantics.
[Daphne – “There are some very different opinions about this Charlie campaign”. God bless freedom of expression. Oh, and it’s not a Charlie campaign. It’s not a campaign at all.]
Small point:-
‘Tout le monde’ (excuse my bad French) refers to it as a campaign, no less:
See e.g. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/01/11/golden-globes-2015-helen-mirren-je-suis-charlie_n_6452930.html
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/01/21/huin-j21.html
http://www.timesofisrael.com/jesuischarlie-campaign-angers-al-jazeera-staff/
http://betanews.com/2015/01/09/apple-google-and-facebook-lend-support-and-money-to-je-suis-charlie-campaign/
And this CAMPAIGN is also raising money: http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/publisher-news/article/65327-je-suis-charlie-campaign-raises-40-000.html
More worrying is that if we stand for “Charlie” and the ‘right’ to insult as it has, then we stand to upset many, many people. See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2916562/Incredible-scenes-tens-thousands-gather-protest-against-Charlie-Hebdo-Chechnya-day-revealed-print-run-magazine-record-SEVEN-MILLION.html
It’s fine to have different opinions and heated discussions, but it is not fine to allow crass and patently insensitive insult.
Unfortunately if people abuse the undoubted freedom and right to hold and to express opinions by provoking others they would be risking that their victims would also abuse by taking the law in their hands.
It does not remain a question of doing what is right and not doing what is wrong.
It becomes a question of those who live by the pen to “kill” reputations will themselves die by the sword.
I am not saying that that kind of retaliation is right. I am lamenting that is what is likely to happen in this imperfect world.
Free speech is no excuse for rudeness, bad taste or ignorance.
It is the mark of a gentleman to criticise without giving offence.
Daphne, I agree with your arguments in favour of the right to offend.
However, by repeatedly mentioning this, you are indicating that your posts are intentionally offending particular persons.
In fact your articles are not offending to anyone in particular. Your posts use regular language used in the Anglo-Saxon and other western media and are usually blunt and to the point, whch is huge relief for us readers.
The thin-skinned and the idiots with an undemocratic mentality are not used to this, and thinking of themselves as untouchables label your posts as offensive.
Just because certain people take offence, does not mean it is intentional. It reflects a lot on the people who take offence. Daphne generally posts what is happening, not invented news items. The point you should have gotten was that people taking offence should grow up.
It is not easy to be free. To become free is by no means an easy achievement..
‘ Essere libei non e’ facile, la liberta’ e faticosa, vuol dire diventare uomini, essere responsabili delle propie scelte. Per questo tanti non la vogliano. Perche non c’e niente di piu difficile che imparare ad essere liberi. Tante volte non e che manca la liberta’, mancano i uomini liberi.’ Benigni
Was it in the UK that an air hostess was ordered to remove a small cross which she wore around her neck?
Is it true that Charlie Hebdo sacked one of his own journalists because he had criticized Jews?
One answer in a newspaper to Clegg’s view was that even if one has the right to offend, one should have the common decency not to do so, especially gratuitously.
What Clegg is defending here is the perceived right of a person to depict Jesus Christ performing a public sexual act when this has no relation at all to any topic under discussion.
I wonder what future generations will think of us if such activity is depicted as one of the high points of our liberal civilization.
Just to forestall any speculation, what I have quoted is an actual cartoon in “Charlie Hebdo” that describes itself as “A journal without responsibility”. Again, irresponsibility in expressing oneself is being depicted as a right.
Jurists who are neither “thin-skinned” nor “idiots” maintain that the right to freedom of speech is limited by the condition not to cause “harm” and “offence” to others.
What is arguable is where to draw the dividing line between what is admissible and what is not in a civilized caring society.
Freedom of movement ends when you break into someone’s property.
Freedom of spending your money ends when others depend on you.
Freedom of sexual activity ends when its not consensual.
All freedom ends when you start hurting others.
All.
Freedom of expression ends when it hurts others.
[Daphne – Wrong. Freedom of expression ends where you start libelling others, not ‘hurting’ them.]
Right. Libelling is a concrete form of hurting and harming someone.
It’s easy to present freedom limitations as good. That doesn’t mean they are.
Freedom of movement ends when you cause someone else discomfort.
Freedom of spending your money ends when you can spend it otherwise for the common good.
Freedom of sexual activity ends when it goes against others’ morals.
Libel means insulting, offending, defaming and harming the reputation of others.
There is no right to offend and to abuse others.
There is the duty to repect other views especially religious beliefs. This is the diffence betwwen freedom (Liberta’) and abuse of freedom (libertinagg).
[Daphne – You are wrong, David. The courts’ interpretation of Maltese libel law has moved with the times. Insults alone are not enough. Libel constitutes lies or wrong information which are damaging to the individual. For instance, if I say that Minister X is a waste of space, that is not libel. But if I say that Minister X took a bribe to give a tender to John X, and this is untrue, that most definitely is libel.]
Moved on, you say?
Then why haven’t the courts thrown out the “clown” case?
The limitation to the “freedom of expression” in Article 19 of the ICCPR is admitted within the article itself when it states that the freedom “… carries special duties and responsibilities”.
J Stuart Mills contends that there is the responsibility “… to prevent harm to others” and according to J Feinberg “…not to give offence”.
That obvious limitation to the freedom of expression is illustrated by laws requiring that printing be licenced by the state and also by different laws against libel and slander, pornography, sedition, incitement to hate, disclosing state secrets and classified information, denying the right to privacy, and in the defence of public order and security.
The list is endless. It varies from state to state according to local exigencies.
My God I can’t believe this is such a bone of contention even on this board, where I usually just read and nod away.
Being offended is a personal choice. Nothing really happens when you are offended. Take yourself less seriously, life will be much happier.
Offense is actually taken and not given. I can insult you, but only you can decide whether you are actually insulted. I might insult an English person using the most colourful expletives the Maltese language can express, but he might not be offended if he doesn’t understand what I’m saying.
On the other hand, one can be offended by anything. I am personally not offended by anyone calling me names but am deeply offended by pedlars of pseudo-science.
And this is why freedom of expression cannot be limited because of offence. Any valid or arbitrary comment can cause offence to someone if it challenges dearly held beliefs.
Offence is not something confined to the offender and to the person directly offended only.
It has ramifications that spread to the rest of society also.
The present widespread Muslim terrorism is a case in point spreading beyond the cartoonist and the mocked Mohammad.