Untitled topic • Hacker News Board

Re: undefined

#61

Post by raverbashing » Sat, Jan 10, 2015, 6:13 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #56

raverbashing wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that's part of the freedom of speech. If you can't say things that will offend people YOU DON'T HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH It's that simple And I'd MUCH rather live in a world where we can offend Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Cientologists, etc

You can say them. You could chose not to say them for the same reason you chose not print anti-semitic cartoons or similar. Freedom of speech is about governments restricting what citizens can say, and that hasn't happened here.

While the definition of freedom of speech is certainly government related, it is also influenced by external retaliation possibilities.

And in a modern society those retaliations should be strictly legal in nature (which unfortunately is often restrictive, but ok, it's part of the game)

Edit: wording

Re: undefined

#62

Post by kristofferR » Sat, Jan 10, 2015, 6:14 PM UTC

DanBC wrote: post #56

raverbashing wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that's part of the freedom of speech. If you can't say things that will offend people YOU DON'T HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH It's that simple And I'd MUCH rather live in a world where we can offend Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Cientologists, etc

You can say them. You could chose not to say them for the same reason you chose not print anti-semitic cartoons or similar. Freedom of speech is about governments restricting what citizens can say, and that hasn't happened here.

No, freedom of speech is about not restricting what people dare to say - it doesn't matter if it's the government or the terrorists that restrict it.

Re: undefined

#63

Post by jtchang » Sat, Jan 10, 2015, 6:15 PM UTC

runn1ng wrote: post #54

jtchang wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is the situation: "He was shot because he called him the N word" vs "He was shot because he published these images". I understand the former pretty easily but the latter I'd want to know what the images contained (especially from a news organization).

As I said before Do you think they should show Jennifer Lawrence leaked photos just because it's part of the news story about iCloud breach? I don't think so.

That's different. The leaked photos aren't central to the story. It's like a piece of art causing a huge amount of controversy. The media outlets certainly don't condone the images but I think it is critical to the story.

Re: undefined

#64

Post by DanBC » Sat, Jan 10, 2015, 6:16 PM UTC

sgift wrote: post #38

Squarel wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does that apply to all views, or just those which you find ridiculous?

All of them. Go on, make a comic about some view I hold you think is ridiculous, maybe it spawns a good discussion.

Please would you email me a couple of pictures of your mother?

Let's test your free speech ideals.

Re: undefined

#65

Post by kristofferR » Sat, Jan 10, 2015, 6:18 PM UTC

jlarocco wrote: post #27

sgift wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they are offensive to some people. That's the point. Offend and ridicule views which are ridiculous.

Fact of the matter is, they wouldn't publish offensive cartoons making fun of the Holocaust, Jews, Christians, 9/11 victims, women, etc., so it's not very surprising they won't publish these cartoons, either. If you want to see offensive cartoons there are plenty of websites just a google search away. It's funny how many stories are posted on HN about being sensitive to women/minorities/whatever, with comments full o…

> Fact of the matter is, they wouldn't publish offensive cartoons making fun of the Holocaust, Jews, Christians, 9/11 victims, women, etc., so it's not very surprising they won't publish these cartoons, either. Wrong - http://gawker.com/7-offensive-images-the-new-york-times-wasn...

It's funny how many stories are posted on HN about being sensitive to women/minorities/whatever, with comments full of people saying how open and accepting people need to be, then this comes up, and the dominant theme is "We need to publish offensive stuff everywhere, because fuck that group who's different than me." > No, fuck the group that uses terrorism to shut people up. It should be way more offensive to bow to the demands of the terrorists than to post some cartoons.