Right to Ridicule: Investigating Its Impact on Constitutional Rights

[WhoWee]

I think that the only ones who tend to vehemently defend the right to ridicule without reservations are the ones who are in the bad habit of ridiculing or those who lack the necessary ethical backround to adequately determine where to draw the proper moral line between ridicule and a violation of a human right.

I believe it's called taking the moral high ground - whether it is or not?

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Here's some news on a master of ridicule. He won't be charged with a crime in the US (nor should he be), but he better stay out of China.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110128/ap_on_en_ot/us_limbaugh_asian_americans

 

[WhoWee]

Here's some news on a master of ridicule. He won't be charged with a crime in the US (nor should he be), but he better stay out of China.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110128/ap_on_en_ot/us_limbaugh_asian_americans

Speaking of ridicule - have you ever heard "banking queen" - the Barney Frank spoof?

 

[thephysicsman]

I have a constitutional right to ridicule. This right is totally harmless and does not impose any obligation on others. I don’t ask the government to force anybody to provide me a venue to perform this right, like leftists and conservatives do when they assert their right to health care, their right to stop people form smoking marihuana, etc. I have a right to insult and piss off everybody in this country so long as I refrain from initiating force.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I have a constitutional right to ridicule. This right is totally harmless and does not impose any obligation on others. I don’t ask the government to force anybody to provide me a venue to perform this right, like leftists and conservatives do when they assert their right to health care, their right to stop people form smoking marihuana, etc. I have a right to insult and piss off everybody in this country so long as I refrain from initiating force.

Yes. But you don't have a right not to be subject to societal sanctions for your speech. Private corporations can and do legally impose a "culture" on employees to maintain a productive workplace. You can lose your job, lose your social status, be sued or subject to boycotts if you are in business. You can be barred from professional associations, and even be expelled from those bastions of free speech: public and private universities for "disruptive" conduct. You can say what want but other people don't have to like it and can legally retaliate accordingly.

 

[WhoWee]

Yes. But you don't have a right not to be subject to societal sanctions for your speech. Private corporations can and do legally impose a "culture" on employees to maintain a productive workplace. You can lose your job, lose your social status, be sued or subject to boycotts if you are in business. You can be barred from professional associations, and even expelled from those bastions of free speech: public and private universities for "disruptive" conduct. You can say what want but other people don't have to like it and can legally retaliate accordingly.

Let's not forget a business needs to prevent harrassment and any discrimination that might be evident given unchecked free speech in the workplace.

 

[thephysicsman]

Yes. But you don't have a right not to be subject to societal sanctions for your speech.

Of course I dont. That would be a violation of other people's rights.

 

[jonnyk]

Hi,

Just wanted to add my two cents hear. First I'm an ardent supporter of free speech AND AT BEST i can understand the ridiculing of FIXED features, such as race and disabilities, to not be sanctioned by society as a whole, THOUGH i wld prefer no legal action be taken against such either. HOWEVER RELIGION? Are you kidding me? 1st religion is a variable as is nationality. 2ndly if we impose restrictions on ridiculing religion then ppl will start protecting their ideologies by continuously centring a new religion around them. The whole point of free speech is to get rid of bad ideas and replace them with better ones thus leading to a self correcting system. Religion is the worst enemy of such a system since it aims to maintain the staus quo in the strongest possible way. I will never understand how even the most secular states like Sweden, Finnland and other scandinavian countries don't seem to get it into their thick skulls that if one can't ridicule religion, one can't have a self correcting mechanism in society and any claims of free speech is then utterly meaningless".

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Hi,

The whole point of free speech is to get rid of bad ideas and replace them with better ones thus leading to a self correcting system. Religion is the worst enemy of such a system since it aims to maintain the staus quo in the strongest possible way. I will never understand how even the most secular states like Sweden, Finnland and other scandinavian countries don't seem to get it into their thick skulls that if one can't ridicule religion, one can't have a self correcting mechanism in society and any claims of free speech is then utterly meaningless".

I never said I support criminal sanctions for ridiculing a religion. However, I think people should have access to the civil courts if they consider themselves victims of willful infliction of verbal abuse because of one's exercise of a constitutional right (freedom of worship). One would have to show that such abuse in some way interfered with this right. I don't know about the countries you mentioned, but in the US you can sue for just about anything.

I also distinguished between criticism, even harsh criticism, and ridicule. See my previous posts.

 

[Tregg Smith]

How long did it take you to come up with that brilliant response? I see you're a PhD. Interesting. I don't know if you took the time to see that the post refers to the linked article of the same name. The author holds a university post in London. His view may be ridiculous to some, but I thought it was an interesting position to discuss.

As far as I being ridiculous, could you expand on that? The article led me to ask a series of questions. How far does free speech go? Yes, publically calling for genocide is ridiculous, but I'm not sure it's illegal. It actually occurs in the US and appears to be tolerated if you are member of a minority group and are calling for the genocide of the majority group.

Do you have something more intelligent to say; something worthy of a PhD?

P h D post hole digger

 

[WhoWee]

P h D post hole digger

post hangover dementia

 

[mXSCNT]

the words of Noam Chomsky: "Goebbels was in favour of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favour of freedom of speech for precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favour of free speech."

 

[WhoWee]

the words of Noam Chomsky: "Goebbels was in favour of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favour of freedom of speech for precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favour of free speech."

I don't think anyone in the US is concerned with being shot over something they say - unless they do it on the wrong city street (perhaps).