OFF: Freeedom of Speech

[Jonathan Jarrett]

On Tue, Feb 14, 2006 at 10:23:26AM -0000, trev typed out:
> to confuse matters, how about introducing artistic license into the debate?
> there might be a predictable consequence sparked off by a work of art which
> inflames passions to act upon it's message.

        That could complicate things in a whole bunch of ways. First
there's the question of whether it's permissible to offend with art. Free
speech should allow us too, obviously, especially as someone will manage
to be offended by almost anything and I don't think it's clear that
society should protect people against `hurt feelings'. But some would
argue otherwise.

        Then an edge case: if the offense has a purpose, such as
highlighting injustice or negligence or intolerance, does that make it
`legitimate' if it wasn't legitimate to do it gratuitously? And even if
there is no purpose beyond the offence, though we permit it, is it still
to be encouraged?

        But by far the biggest problem is going to be deciding whether
something `is art' in the courtroom... I know they say everyone's a
critic, but...

        Not necessarily my views, any of this, but this is where I can see
handholds in the structure for born arguers to get a grip on. Yours,
                                                                     Jon

--
        Jonathan Jarrett                Birkbeck College, London
                 jjarrett at chiark.greenend.org.uk
        --------------------------------------------------------
  "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away." (Tom Waits)