The first amendment of the US constitution:Hot topic lately, which I find rather scary. To be clear, such a 'right' does not currently exist. But there seems to be a movement that seeks to establish it. Anyone care to defend the position that this would be good for society? — Roke
A respectful and moderate tone is desirable as it's the most likely to foster serious and productive discussion. Having said that, you may express yourself strongly as long as it doesn't disrupt a thread or degenerate into flaming (which is not tolerated and will result in your post being deleted). — guidelines
The first amendment of the US constitution:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
is consistently interpreted by the US Supreme Court, and by most intelligent people, as protecting speech (speech being very broadly defined) that may be offensive.
Some speech is not protected. Famously, you cannot call out "Fire!" in a crowded theater if there is no fire, and so forth. Libel and slander aren't protected. And I suspect (I do not know) that speech that is offensive without any other purpose is not entirely protected.
So much for speech. In as much as some "offense" is a (necessary) risk in a free society, if there is to be such a right, then "offense" is going to have to be pretty carefully defined. I'm thinking that it (indirectly) mostly is, in both civil and criminal law. — tim wood
So there is a corresponding right not to be gratuitously offended. — unenlightened
I think you touched on something important here - the distinction between rights and duties. I might have a duty not to (gratuitously) offend. Sounds fair, but the qualifier is important. Do you have a duty to ensure I don't take offense? — Roke
The enactment also amends the Criminal Code to extend the protection against hate propaganda set out in that Act to any section of the public that is distinguished by gender identity or expression and to clearly set out that evidence that an offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on gender identity or expression constitutes an aggravating circumstance that a court must take into consideration when it imposes a sentence.
For instance, I would not be entitled to be addressed as Dr unenlightened MD, because I am not an MD, but if you refuse to address me as Mr unenlightened BA, then I want to know the reason why. ;) — Un
And maybe you'd find out I have one (e.g. your degree was clearly photoshopped) — Roke
Yes, however the two are not unlinked. If someone has a "right" to something, that legally entails protections of that "right" by the state, up to and including force. Is that fair to say?So Peterson's issue is more than a question of not offending people who claim to be transgendered, it is a question of liability to prosecution under hate speech law. — Bitter Crank
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
I got the impression that the purpose of this new Canadian law is to try to formalize transsexual's rights in legal terms of labor, housing, and other areas where bias is possible and that it was not the intent of the law to ban or control informal speech (as I get it). — Cavacava
Agreed and not just "employer" but also for "campus". Same for surveillance. You can "break" the rules and be supported in the freedom to do so, but you are also free to be retaliated against for same said event.Congress can make no law... but your employer can make rules, or you school (if private) can make rules, and one is stuck with those rules. — Bitter Crank
I agree.I think the right to be, and not be, offended is an important part of political and social discourse. However I don't think it should be a criminal offence if you do offend someone. — SnowyChainsaw
Agreed.Not matter what you say, someone somewhere may be offended. It is completely outside the control of a speaker to prevent this. For example: even if a speaker was to tone down their language in order to placate the dissenters of his/her opinion, the fact that he/she is "sugarcoating" his/her speech can upset the people that wanted to hear him/her speak in the first place. No matter what you say, someone will take offence.
So I don't think it is fair to hold a person accountable if he/she offends someone. — SnowyChainsaw
Well, I agree that we all have free speech, and if someone was offended, then they have the right to say so, but their right doesn't trump someone else's rights. Being offended, or having you feelings hurt should never trump logic and reason. If you don't like what someone said, use logic and reason to counter it, not claim that your feelings are hurt as if that somehow disqualifies a logical and reasonable statement someone had made.However it is important for members of a society to express themselves when they take offence. This process, I believe, helps a society at large determine whether an idea is "good" or not and build a moral system that can be agreed upon. I see offence as a mechanism people can use to show their disapproval regardless of how eloquent they are and if lots of people are finding a particular idea offensive, we, as a society, have a duty to explore why. Of course, this only works if there is no capital punishment for offending someone; an idea that is offensive is not inherently wrong, and radical, progressive ideas tend to offend a large number of the populous. In this case, it is the responsibility of the speaker to be eloquent enough to convince people not to be offended. — SnowyChainsaw
This is exactly what I've tried to explain - that different people can be offended by something that someone else isn't offended by. We need to explain why this is the case BEFORE we just start giving people rights that can override one of our other, more fundamental, rights - free speech.Lastly, I also support the right to not be offended. Personally, someone will find it very, very difficult to offend me with words alone. For example: I'm black and therefore I have been called some interesting and creative racial slurs. I have never been bothered by this and racism has never negatively affected my life. I actually encourage my partners to call me a N****r to desensitize them from the word and prevent them from being offended on my behalf. Which brings me to my point. People should have the right to not be offended so people like me, who just want to get on with life, do not have to worry about our lives being affected by people who are being offended on our behalf. Without the right to not be offended, I feel this could not happen and will cause even more political and social divisiveness then the people that espouse socially objectionable ideas. — SnowyChainsaw
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.