OFF: Freeedom of Speech

[M Holmes]

Paul Mather writes:

> On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 14:33 +0000, M Holmes wrote:

> The thing that amuses me about this fracas is
> that it is so easy to froth against "arab governments" and "arabs in
> general" and all other manner of (increasingly racist in this thread)
> stereotypes

Is using a stereotype protesting arab for shorthand necessarily racist?
Are we to insert instead at every reference "those arabs who are burning
flags, but only those arabs who are burning flags and not the vast
majority of arabs who couldn't care less what cartoons are published in
Denmark"? Or can we just take it as read?

I drink with more lefties than you can shake a stick at, and I work in a
University, so I do understand all the tiptoeing around race and PC
issues, particularly in a discussion of cultural and religious
differences, but really, I get tired of all that and would appreciate
the slack to say what I want to say without having to deal with calls of
racism.

> because the target is easy to caricaturise and point the
> finger at

Well y'know, that's really just because they tried so hard to get on
the rest of the world's TV screens doing stupid shit. If they put in
that much effort then I'm not gonna deny them a little finger-pointing.

> it's an easily identified bogeyman that it's easy to get
> everyone to hate.

Hate? Here? That musta shot waaay over my head.  I don't hate the
protesting Muslims.  Live and let live I say.  All that's really
required for their end of that bargain is that they burn their own stuff
rather than someone else's and they leave what's published in Denmark to
the newspaper and its customers.

> (BTW, numerically speaking, isn't your average muslim
> face going to look South-East Asian, not Arabic in this thread?)

Possibly, but they're not the guys burning down Embassies and demanding
the chopping off of heads.

> But, if freedom of speech is so worth fighting for, I'm wondering why
> aren't we doing it at home.

Who says we're not?

> Anyone remember the old geezer in his
> eighties that was manhandled out of a Labour party conference speech and
> subsequently arrested on (if memory serves) anti-terrorism charges, just
> because he shouted a single word of dissent from the back?

Oh yes. I'll probably remember that all my days. It happened less than
24 hours after we were assured that the legislation would only ever be
applied to real terrorists.

[Bunch of other important stuff that has my blood boiling elided - I
composed a strongly worded email to my MSP about some of it only today -
someone bake me a cake with a file in it if I'm suddenly posted missing?]

> When everyone is calling on newspapers and media to "stand up for free
> speech" and publish a bunch of cartoons "because they can," why aren't
> they also asking them to publish about the messier side of the Iraq
> conflict "because they can?"

I suspect it's quit selling newspapers. It's sad I know, but even being
lied into a war gets old where much of the population is concerned.

> Instead of fixating on the latest
> goings-on in the Celebrity Big Brother house

I couldn't name one person in Big Brother on a bet. I heard that someone
called "Jade" was in it once.

> why can't we be informed
> of the latest goings-on in the world of corporate welfare, war
> profiteering, and tax loopholes?  Why (in the USA) can George W. Bush
> get away with staging orchestrated "Town Hall" meetings in which only
> those that pledge to follow the party line and cheer on cue are allowed
> admission and have the media actually screen such blatant propaganda?

Y'know, I've heard of most of that too.

> It's all very well to demand we and our newspapers stand up against
> "arab governments."  How about being just as vigorous in standing up to
> our own, though?

It'd be great, but you have to admit that holding our breath in the
meanwhile probably wouldn't be a good plan.

> Surely that's more important (albeit more difficult)? IMO, this
> cartoons outrage is just hypocrisy.  There are worse problems closer
> to home.

Possibly, but the only chance you'll have of persuading people of it is
to retain some vestige of freedom of speech.

> "Future generations are relying on us!"

Testify brother! Testify!

FoFP