Freedom of Speech vs Inflammotry Expression

[Murad]

Angelique Chrisafis, Paris

April 20, 2011




ANDRES Serrano’s Piss Christ has been destroyed by Christians who broke into a French gallery and slashed the photograph after weeks of protests.

The New York photographer’s controversial work shows a small crucifix submerged in a glass of the artist’s urine.

It outraged the US religious right in 1987, when it was first shown. It was vandalised in Melbourne in 1997, and neo-Nazis ransacked a Swedish show by the artist in 2007.

The work has previously been shown without incident in France, but for the past two weeks Catholic groups have campaigned against it, culminating in hundreds of people marching through Avignon on Saturday in protest.

On Sunday morning, four people in sunglasses entered the gallery. One took a hammer from his sock and threatened security staff. A guard restrained one man but the others managed to smash an acrylic screen and slash the photograph with what police believe was a screwdriver or ice pick.

Last week the gallery complained of �extremist harassment� by Christians who wanted the image banned.

The Archbishop of Vaucluse, Jean-Pierre Cattenoz, called the work �odious� and said he wanted �this trash� taken off the gallery walls. Saturday’s street protest against the work gained the support of the far-right National Front.

The owner of the work, Yvon Lambert, had complained he was being �persecuted� by religious extremists who had sent him tens of thousands of emails. He likened the atmosphere to the Middle Ages.

French Culture Minister Frederic Mitterrand condemned the vandalism as an attack on the fundamental freedoms of creation and expression.

The gallery’s director, Eric Mezil, said he would keep the exhibition open to the public with the destroyed work on show �so people can see what barbarians can do�.
Source

Question for debate:
1) Are the above Christians against "Western Values" of "Free Speech" ?
2) How do we differentiate "Free Speech" & "Inflammatory Expression"?
3) Are the two phrases purely subjective & pre-defined by ones cognitive orientation ? Or, is there an objective method of differentiating the two?

[Wootah]

Question for debate:
1) Are the above Christians against "Western Values" of "Free Speech" ?
2) How do we differentiate "Free Speech" & "Inflammatory Expression"?
3) Are the two phrases purely subjective & pre-defined by ones cognitive orientation ? Or, is there an objective method of differentiating the two?

1) I think their attack on the art supports terrorism. Law of unintended consequences will bite them. If I don't like something I don't support it with my money. That works best.

2) The decibels. I value free speech over what people say so long as if I ask them to stop talking to me they do.

3) I think the fruit of free speech in terms of getting to the truth by talking is too well founded to dismiss.

[Choir Loft]

I think their attack on the art supports terrorism. Law of unintended consequences will bite them. If I don't like something I don't support it with my money. That works best.

You need to revisit your dictionary. Ripping up a bit of canvas, smashing statuary, or peeing on a chalk drawing is not terrorism.

By definition, terrorism is an act which inspires ... think hard ... terror.

Exactly how is ruining something, which is already trash, an act of terror?

For accuracy, one should resort to a legal definition and call it destruction of private property (most likley a misdemeanor in this case as the thing isn't worth two cents).

Your statement about not supporting the artist with your money hits the nail squarely on it's head. It's all about the profit motive - not art.

[Wootah]

I think their attack on the art supports terrorism. Law of unintended consequences will bite them. If I don't like something I don't support it with my money. That works best.

You need to revisit your dictionary. Ripping up a bit of canvas, smashing statuary, or peeing on a chalk drawing is not terrorism.

By definition, terrorism is an act which inspires ... think hard ... terror.

Exactly how is ruining something, which is already trash, an act of terror?

For accuracy, one should resort to a legal definition and call it destruction of private property (most likley a misdemeanor in this case as the thing isn't worth two cents).

Your statement about not supporting the artist with your money hits the nail squarely on it's head. It's all about the profit motive - not art.

Well can I presume you won't blame Muslims for destroying a church that offends them?

Who says it was trash? Humanity did piss on Christ to put it bluntly.

Art/profit motive no difference. People can spend their money on what they wish.

[Meow Mix]

My feelings on this matter are summed up in my signature. In the event that I change my signature in the future, it goes something like this:

"Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it."

Christians have every right to be upset over this so-called "art" (personally, I think it's trash) -- but they don't have the right to destroy it or to prevent it from being displayed should a property owner (like a museum) decide to display it.

I don't think there's a difference between "freedom of speech" and "inflammatory expression." I don't think that latter thing exists as some separate category; except perhaps where it directly deceives people into being harmed -- such as yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. And no, inciting small minded people to violence doesn't count as harmful speech -- that's their fault (the violent retaliator's), not the speaker's fault.

Nobody has the right not to be offended. If they did, anything and everything would be illegal. That would get downright ridiculous and walk all over civil liberties. So, please, people: if you see something that offends you, don't censor it. Ignore it, yes. Speak your mind about it, yes. Boycott it, yes. But don't censor it. Censorship is for the real cowards, even if it is absolute garbage that's being censored.

[micatala]

My feelings on this matter are summed up in my signature. In the event that I change my signature in the future, it goes something like this:

"Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it."

Christians have every right to be upset over this so-called "art" (personally, I think it's trash) -- but they don't have the right to destroy it or to prevent it from being displayed should a property owner (like a museum) decide to display it.

I don't think there's a difference between "freedom of speech" and "inflammatory expression." I don't think that latter thing exists as some separate category; except perhaps where it directly deceives people into being harmed -- such as yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. And no, inciting small minded people to violence doesn't count as harmful speech -- that's their fault (the violent retaliator's), not the speaker's fault.

Nobody has the right not to be offended. If they did, anything and everything would be illegal. That would get downright ridiculous and walk all over civil liberties. So, please, people: if you see something that offends you, don't censor it. Ignore it, yes. Speak your mind about it, yes. Boycott it, yes. But don't censor it. Censorship is for the real cowards, even if it is absolute garbage that's being censored.

Hi Meow Mix and welcome to the forum.

I largely agree with your post here, except for the equating of free speech and inflammatory rhetoric. I agree, inflammatory rhetoric should in general be protected under the right to free speech. The government should be very circumspect about censoring speech, no matter how inflammatory.

However, inflammatory rhetoric can also be spoken against by individual citizens.

Some people employ rhetoric with the intent to inflame, even inflame people to violence. That, to me, is different than someone making a statement that some find offensive. I think gay marriage should be legal, and I think one can make a sound theological case for acceptance of homosexuality in the Christian tradition. Many other Christians find this offensive. I don't count why I say as inflammatory, even if it is controversial or expressed in a contentious way.

[Meow Mix]

My feelings on this matter are summed up in my signature. In the event that I change my signature in the future, it goes something like this:

"Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it."

Christians have every right to be upset over this so-called "art" (personally, I think it's trash) -- but they don't have the right to destroy it or to prevent it from being displayed should a property owner (like a museum) decide to display it.

I don't think there's a difference between "freedom of speech" and "inflammatory expression." I don't think that latter thing exists as some separate category; except perhaps where it directly deceives people into being harmed -- such as yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. And no, inciting small minded people to violence doesn't count as harmful speech -- that's their fault (the violent retaliator's), not the speaker's fault.

Nobody has the right not to be offended. If they did, anything and everything would be illegal. That would get downright ridiculous and walk all over civil liberties. So, please, people: if you see something that offends you, don't censor it. Ignore it, yes. Speak your mind about it, yes. Boycott it, yes. But don't censor it. Censorship is for the real cowards, even if it is absolute garbage that's being censored.

Hi Meow Mix and welcome to the forum.

I largely agree with your post here, except for the equating of free speech and inflammatory rhetoric. I agree, inflammatory rhetoric should in general be protected under the right to free speech. The government should be very circumspect about censoring speech, no matter how inflammatory.

However, inflammatory rhetoric can also be spoken against by individual citizens.

Some people employ rhetoric with the intent to inflame, even inflame people to violence. That, to me, is different than someone making a statement that some find offensive. I think gay marriage should be legal, and I think one can make a sound theological case for acceptance of homosexuality in the Christian tradition. Many other Christians find this offensive. I don't count why I say as inflammatory, even if it is controversial or expressed in a contentious way.

Hello, and thanks for the welcome!

I agree with you -- I think. Inciting violence is already a crime, though, and I agree with it being so. However, there is a difference between having... say, a rally against Irish girls named Meow Mix where they call her names and complain about her, say, taking people's jobs... and having a rally where they say "We should beat up Meow Mix and maybe even kill her!"

The first rally is protected speech, the second is not.

[micatala]

My feelings on this matter are summed up in my signature. In the event that I change my signature in the future, it goes something like this:

"Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it."

Christians have every right to be upset over this so-called "art" (personally, I think it's trash) -- but they don't have the right to destroy it or to prevent it from being displayed should a property owner (like a museum) decide to display it.

I don't think there's a difference between "freedom of speech" and "inflammatory expression." I don't think that latter thing exists as some separate category; except perhaps where it directly deceives people into being harmed -- such as yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. And no, inciting small minded people to violence doesn't count as harmful speech -- that's their fault (the violent retaliator's), not the speaker's fault.

Nobody has the right not to be offended. If they did, anything and everything would be illegal. That would get downright ridiculous and walk all over civil liberties. So, please, people: if you see something that offends you, don't censor it. Ignore it, yes. Speak your mind about it, yes. Boycott it, yes. But don't censor it. Censorship is for the real cowards, even if it is absolute garbage that's being censored.

Hi Meow Mix and welcome to the forum.

I largely agree with your post here, except for the equating of free speech and inflammatory rhetoric. I agree, inflammatory rhetoric should in general be protected under the right to free speech. The government should be very circumspect about censoring speech, no matter how inflammatory.

However, inflammatory rhetoric can also be spoken against by individual citizens.

Some people employ rhetoric with the intent to inflame, even inflame people to violence. That, to me, is different than someone making a statement that some find offensive. I think gay marriage should be legal, and I think one can make a sound theological case for acceptance of homosexuality in the Christian tradition. Many other Christians find this offensive. I don't count why I say as inflammatory, even if it is controversial or expressed in a contentious way.

Hello, and thanks for the welcome!

I agree with you -- I think. Inciting violence is already a crime, though, and I agree with it being so. However, there is a difference between having... say, a rally against Irish girls named Meow Mix where they call her names and complain about her, say, taking people's jobs... and having a rally where they say "We should beat up Meow Mix and maybe even kill her!"

The first rally is protected speech, the second is not.

I agree.

Except, of course, that if the Irish are involved, any amount of fisticuffs should be considered tolerable.


Wait, is that inflammatory speech I just engaged in?


But more seriously, yes, unless someone is specifically promoting violence, the speech should be considered protected, even if it is inflammatory (or disgusting, hateful, ill-informed, etc.). The government should not intervene.

However, I do believe it is beneficial, perhaps even a duty, for rational people to speak out against certain types of "inflammatory rhetoric" or actions. For example, Pastor Jones from Florida who wanted to burn Korans on September 11th as a kind of anti-Islamic statement. He should be free to do so. He should also be, and he was including by me on this forum, castigated for his profoundly misguided plans.

[nygreenguy]

However, I do believe it is beneficial, perhaps even a duty, for rational people to speak out against certain types of "inflammatory rhetoric" or actions. For example, Pastor Jones from Florida who wanted to burn Korans on September 11th as a kind of anti-Islamic statement. He should be free to do so. He should also be, and he was including by me on this forum, castigated for his profoundly misguided plans.

I think it was PZ Myers who said this, but heres how I see it.

You have a dunk father who flips out at anything. He will beat you for nearly anything you say. Finally, you get sick of it and you say something rude, mean, and disrespectful and wouldnt you know, he beats the crap out of you.

Now, are you wrong for speaking out? Can you in any way be responsible for what happened? Is what you did even wrong?

I say "no" on all counts.

[micatala]

However, I do believe it is beneficial, perhaps even a duty, for rational people to speak out against certain types of "inflammatory rhetoric" or actions. For example, Pastor Jones from Florida who wanted to burn Korans on September 11th as a kind of anti-Islamic statement. He should be free to do so. He should also be, and he was including by me on this forum, castigated for his profoundly misguided plans.

I think it was PZ Myers who said this, but heres how I see it.

You have a dunk father who flips out at anything. He will beat you for nearly anything you say. Finally, you get sick of it and you say something rude, mean, and disrespectful and wouldnt you know, he beats the crap out of you.

Now, are you wrong for speaking out? Can you in any way be responsible for what happened? Is what you did even wrong?

I say "no" on all counts.

What do you mean by "wrong?"

I certainly agree, you are not responsible for what happened in this situation. I also think you certainly have done nothing "wrong" in the moral sense.

In this situation, you are presented with no real good choices. You can remain silent, and you will eventually get beat up again. You can speak out, and get beat up right away. In neither case are you at fault for the other person's actions.

I am only pointing out that you could have at least postponed getting beat up, or possibly reduced the number of times you get beat up, by not speaking out.


Now, I also have to point out that this analogy is different in an important way from Jones' actions. In that case, his speaking out is likely to cause, and actually has, harm to other people besides himself.



Here is an alternative version. We have a drunken father who, at least according to the rumor mill, has a history of beating up his kids. Another man, who does not like the father because he has sexist views, decides to write a letter to the editor about the father, castigating him for his views and the treatment of his wife and female kids. The guy responds by beating up the wife and kids, and one of the kids dies.

Now, was the man in his rights to right the editorial? Sure.

Did he do anything "wrong?"
You tell me.

But it is pretty clear the kid would not be dead if he had not written the editorial.

Should he have written the editorial or not?

Does he deserve any public criticism for writing the editorial?