I like to think that I am aware of what is and is not acceptable to me as an individual (and by extension my wider community) than my critics. The "freedom" alluded to by playwright Bonnie Greer in today's Daily Telegraph and in a Times leader( www.thetimes.co.uk ,www.telegraph co.uk, Sept 26, 2014) strikes me as the dubious freedom to say whatever you say, whenever you feel like saying it, ignoring the sensibilities of an outraged community(which in the case of blacks amount to freedom to wilfully traduce a community that long felt the sting of prejudice)be it ethnic or religious- even in the US this is a ludicrous line of argument- try exercising your "freedom" to play loud music into the night, to publish troop movements in wartime( which would get you thrown in prison at the very least if not tried and possibly executed on treason charges) or simply to walk down the local high street buck assed naked!
One of my favourite aphorisms is that "freedom for the pike is death-or considerable inconvenience at the very least- for the minnow". Whilst we're on the general subject of ruminations of US jurisprudence, one of my favourites is that of the late Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart- "I can't define hard core pornography precisely but by golly, I know it when I see it!" ( substitute racism for hard core pornography and there is my view). Given that until 1966, the Hays Code governed how Hollywood could cover certain "sensitive" topics such as religion and the Lord Chamberlain's office in the UKcould "legally" censor plays as recently as 1968, I find this specious and self serving insistence on "freedom", strikes me as the height of hypocrisy!
Terry, can I call you Terry? Quite frankly I think you have no idea what you are talking about. Most of your posts are nonsensical rambling interspersed with quotations that sometimes if we are lucky vaguely coincide with the issue being discussed. You try to make yourself come off as an intellectual, but it is pretty clear you haven't the slightest clue about most of the topics you bring up.
Since you keep on changing the topic at hand every time I prove you wrong...
I have never once in this debate argued that freedom of speech is absolute. It is not, but the exceptions for what is not protected speech are very narrow and limited and nothing about this particular exhibit falls under the umbrella of unprotected speech. You keep on naming situations where speech is not protected, but you fail to realize that none of those situations apply to this issue. The exceptions for First Amendment Protection in the United States are false statements of fact, obscenity, child pornography, fighting words, threats, commercial speech, speech owned by others(intellectual property), and defamation. This specific case does not fall under any of those categories. If black people are offended by the exhibit then they don't have to go see it. The exhibit itself is not hurting the black community in any way. In fact it is calling attention to the horrors of such historical institutions and educating people about a little known part of history. If anything it is benefiting the black community indirectly by telling the untold story of blacks and other conquered native peoples who were historically held in "Human Zoos". If anything to forget those people would be far more shameful and cruel. This exhibit is no different than actors portraying a plantation in the Pre-Civil War South.
You do not legally have any ground to stand on in calling for the infringement of other's rights simply because it offends you, or some section of the general populace. There is a ton of legal precedent against you, including numerous cases I have already explained to you, and many more. By all means actually provide some legal support for your opinion.
You must completely lack critical thinking skills. The exhibit is not racist, unless National Geographic is racist too. It is an accurate depiction of historical events. I suppose history books are racist too. Do you think before you type?
What exactly is hypocritical about what I am saying? How exactly am I a hypocrite? If anything you are the hypocrite. You want to be able to censor other people's speech with no ramifications to your own. I merely advocate that any speech that isn't unprotected for the previously listed reasons should be protected regardless of that person's views, or the views of the mob.
Lastly there are no pikes and no minnows here. Frankly the idea you are putting forth there is vaguely racist in and of itself.
Log in to comment