UK Amazon Kindle Forum discussion
General Chat - anything Goes
>
Censoring books. There's an app for that.
date
newest »
newest »
Marc wrote: "so you're in favour of a blasphemy law then to protect Islam against depictions of the Prophet (which is odd because none of us know what he looked like anyway). And if Muslims have a blasphemy law..."You're flipping from one extreme to the other. Just because there is no right to offend does not mean that we should ban anything which might be offensive. It isn't a polarised choice between total freedom of speech or total prohibition.
As writers we can't write anything that we want. Most countries have laws prohibiting some written materials on grounds of libel/ slander, copyright, pornography, race hate and so on. We spend a lot of time and effort nuancing those laws and updating them as morale values change.
I'd call it "shades of grey" if that phrase hadn't been hijacked recently.
Because of that there has never been a de facto right to offend. It doesn't exist. It has never existed. What we have is a set of societal norms which are constantly being updated. In some countries and in some cultures those norms are fairly liberal. In others they aren't.
This app allows authors to use swearing in their books but gives those who don't like swearing to avoid seeing it. That sounds to me like respecting someone else's opinion instead of trying to force my opinion on them.
oh it pretty much is a polarised choice. If what you say or write is not breaking the law (and that includes incitement) then anything else goes. Now you may feel like the law fails to cover enough of these eventualities, or that the law is an ass, but then you need to agitate for changes to the law, not try and narrow free expression through prescription. I'll say it again, without the ability to piss someone off somewhere, freedom of expression is meaningless. Why do i say this? because if you lift up enough stones, you'll will find someone who is prepared to be offended; everything we say is offensive to somebody or other, largely because we are so atomised one from the other.
Gingerlily - Elephant Philosopher wrote: "Well, looks like the authors win.http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015..."
Hurrah!
Blasphemy was abolished in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 which also covers such things as nuclear terrorism and hate crimesIt also includes the interesting Section 29JA
In this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred
which the government tried to repeal in the 2009 Coroners and Justice Bill.
The repeal failed and section 29JA remains. The section was extended to protect criticism of gay marriage by the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013
I mention this because I think if we're discussing censorship, we really ought to have a sense of perspective as to what government has tried to censor
censorship doesn't only come from the authorities. Just ask the Christian pressure groups who seek certain books to be banned from schools and libraries
Marc wrote: "censorship doesn't only come from the authorities. Just ask the Christian pressure groups who seek certain books to be banned from schools and libraries"Struggling to think of an example of that happening in the UK since the late Mary Whitehouse's day
Marc - it is only a polarised choice if you make it so. Most of us operate within a framework of societal norms. For example, the n-word isn't illegal, but most of us wouldn't use it in everyday speech. Just about every definition of freedom of speech that any nation has come up with has applied rules, limitations and boundaries. Just as there has never been a right to offend, so too there has never been an unlimited freedom of speech.
It is only in sloppy rhetoric that people throw around phrases like "right to offend" or "freedom of speech" as if they absolutes. They are not. They never have been. There have always been rules. Those rules and exceptions are constantly changing, but they have always been there.
Most definitions of censorship involve an organisation such as a Government or a church preventing people from seeing something they want to see. This app doesn't do that. It helps people to make their own decisions about what they want to see, which is a basic human right. The book doesn't change.
there are not rules, there are laws and then there are conventions. You say there is no right to offend, but I would counter there are no proscribed limits to FoE other than what is forbidden by law. A convention is not a law. It can be flouted with impunity in legal terms. US rappers and African-American comedians use the N-word in their work in public. Reginald D Hunter a US African-American comic who is now based in the UK uses it liberally. If use of the N-word in a context is considered an incitement of racial hatred, that person can be prosecuted.Again you and I are temperamentally at different ends of the spectrum on this one.
Jim wrote: "Marc wrote: "censorship doesn't only come from the authorities. Just ask the Christian pressure groups who seek certain books to be banned from schools and libraries"Struggling to think of an exa..."
That's true, but it's pretty common in certain US states.
A lot of things are common in certain US states but it doesn't mean to say they extend into the civilised world :-)
I'm late to this but I despise the concept. A book is a work of art and should be read as the author intended it or not at all. If you're not adult enough to accept that strong language is a part of life then go and read something else. I use swearing in most of my books for authenticity. I wouldn't have it any other way and substituting for milder words is just silly. I don't really understand why people are offended by strong language. If it's not aimed personally at you, what's the problem?
Jonathan wrote: "I don't really understand why people are offended by strong language."People enjoy being offended.
Especially these days when exercising their 'right' to be offended by something gives them a free pass to the very top of the moral high ground.
David wrote: "Jonathan wrote: "I don't really understand why people are offended by strong language."People enjoy being offended.
Especially these days when exercising their 'right' to be offended by somethin..."
Absolutely true David
yes, it's got to the stage where it's no longer the playground of twitter, now death threats have been issued to the Controller of the BBC over Clarkson's sacking. Again, what is known as the assassin's veto...
"Your right to free speech ends where my feelings begin" (summary of no right to offence argument)no it doesn't
Marc wrote: ""Your right to free speech ends where my feelings begin" That offends me :-)
Do we not all sacrifice a little bit of freedom in return for the benefits of living in regularly organized society? The question is who decides which bits of freedom we have to give up? That comes down to politics, democracy, dictatorship et al.
You get all deep and thoughtful when your elbows are propped on the bar, Simon.
Marc - sorry, but that just does not stack up. The right to offend does not exist under any definition of what constitutes a right.It has never been expressed in legislation.
It has not been written down or discussed at length.
It is not implied by any writings or legislation on the freedom of speech.
It has never been agreed.
I love it when you say "there are no proscribed limits to FoE other than what is forbidden by law". In other words, there are limits on freedom of expression.
I cannot find a single civilization - existing or in the past - that has ever had an unlimited freedom of expression. Not one.
Something becomes a right when large enough numbers of people decide to adopt it as a right. The right to offend isn't in that category. It is an idea that was first expressed as recently as 2004 and that quoted sloppily in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo incident as if it was a fundamental right that could not be argued against.
The n word is fascinating because there is a convention that black people can use it where white people can't. That is exactly the sort of nuanced approach to freedom of speech that we have, not some ridiculous right to say anything.
This is not a difference of opinion. You are talking about two things - a right to offend and unlimited freedom of speech - that simply do not exist.
"I love it when you say "there are no proscribed limits to FoE other than what is forbidden by law". In other words, there are limits on freedom of expression" This is something we actually both agree on, although not in the choice of words as to how we express it. I guess what I'm trying to say is that outside of the line drawn in the ground by the law, there is no prescription or convention that holds as sacred.
You're correct in the respect that there is no formally established & defined right to offend. I need to find another word, but I uphold and sometimes assert my ability and opportunity to offend as an artist through my work and yes I see this being curtailed by people who react with guns and knives and death threats. Therefore my right to free expression (within the law) is being curtailed through threats of violence.
the language in the wake of Charlie Hebdo may have been sloppy (indicative that it's about time we had a serious public discourse on FoE, what it means, what its limits are) but you cannot get away from the fact that free expression was assassinated and murdered in cold blood and that is an assassin's veto. Journalism and art must retain an ability to speak to truth.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015...