Censorship with a blunt instrument....

So this is your idea of freedom of speech.

Having the right to pass judgement on a whole race/religion based on what you've seen on TV.

 

Probably better to be quiet then, rather than make un-educated statements.

 

steve,
personally i believe that there should be rules that protect minors and others who cannot protect themselves however everything else should be allowed. it doesn;t mean to say i'd go and watch it or even condone it but who am i to tell someone else what they can or cannot watch / like. i bounce your question back at you... where do you draw the line. for example i'd not want to watch gay porn and i know a lot of people who'd like it banned however there are those that want to watch it. an extreme example would be a terminally ill cancer patient who wanted to star in a snuff movie for 1 millon pounds payable to his family. i personally think he should be allowed however there is no way i'd go and watch it. it's his choice to star in it and your choice to watch it or not.
cheers


julian.

 

Julian,

As I said, it's an issue of judgement. I believe that I've made my views clear in the cases that I've discussed.

Taking your examples:

Gay porn - wouldn't watch it but wouldn't ban it.
Snuff movie - would ban it.

As for the Sikh play that this thread's about - I don't know enough about it to give a view. I suppose that if I felt it incited hatred I would ban it. If it is clearly fiction, I'd allow it (although I wouldn't necessarily want to see it myself). Anyway, as far as I know, banning the play isn't an issue here. Following a violent protest by a small number of Sikhs, the theatre has decided not to continue with the play. This is their right, whether we agree with their decision or not.

 

The theatre has decided not to continue because of concern for the safety of the public, staff and for its property.

So now some thugs have broken the law, suppressed free speech and some of their 'community leaders' are pleased. I'm disgusted.

Paul

 

For once, I'm in agreement with you Paul on a non hifi-related matter!

Michael.

 

Just can't be arsed anymore - you win

Offensive remarks removed by S&C. Apologies to all.

 

I believe that it is still legal to take the piss out of hat wearers (just).

Paraphrasing Rowan Atkinson, it should be allowable to make fun of hat wearers as they have a choice. Baldies on the other hand...

Merry Christmas to you too. Have a nice stable, enjoy your mangers and stay away from the sheep (or whatever else is the right thing to say when sending greetings to Christians).

Happy Holidays to all the sensitive PC types on the forum.

In fact, I shouldn't really have mentioned Mangers as it's not fair to Bandors (about which definite good news in the new year).

Hic!

 

There is nothing taboo about "Hats", although the correct noun is Turban in this case. What upset me the stereo typing. If you are genuinely interested in why Sikhs wear Turbans I can give you a few pointers via PM.

BTW, Merry Christmas to you too.

 

What's funny though, is that in many cases of "ban this terrible film/play/book it's a heresy/incitement to religious hatred etc", the people doing the most vociferous complaining haven't even seen or read it, and their entire reactionary behaviour is based on the rhetoric of a dodgy tabloid or an ill-informed "leader".

Very rarely is it a case of rational and reasoned debate!

 

What's "rational and reasoned debate" to do with Religion?

You are correct though. The offending subject is often, if not always seen and quoted out of context and the sheep just follow. Whatever the Religion.

 

Some interesting comments here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4114497.stm

Michael.

 

That's the problem with belief! There's no argument for, or against as there's no real proof either way.
So if you blindly believe, there can be no discussion..

I was brought up Catholic, and (strangely perhaps) we were encouraged to question our beliefs - some priests were more keen on this that others.. I questioned, and found it wanting which is why I'm now an agnostic (too much guilt to say I'm an atheist!)

 

"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist," wrote Salman Rushdie.

I wonder if his views have changed at all considering the heavy price he has been paying ever since the publication of his infamous novel. I'm afraid I have to disagree. The right of freedon of expression in my view should not mean the right to offend. That doesn't mean I agree with the banning of the play.

 

In other words you ARE an atheist, you just won't admit it.

 

Thing is, he's correct. Without the freedom to offend you aren't free to say much at all. Christian fundamentalist creationists are a danger to society for example, in my opinion, but if I'm not allowed to offend I have to keep Shtum, even though I feel quite strongly that, that is the case.

 

But what gives you the right to offend someone who's never meant any harm to you?, whom you've never even met or know anything about?

 

So what? If I want to offend someone then that should be my choice, whether it's intentional or otherwise. I have the right to tell any passer by in the street to fcuk off if I like (not that I do that often ).

Michael.

 

Sorry I don't understand your point. I'm not talking about PC or the play. I just don't understand why one should have the right to offend anyone, joking aside obviously. If you do offend anyone then surely you can't complain about any reaction from the offended.

 

How do you offend someone?