Jerry springer:The Opera

​

​

​

http://www.swedenborgdigitallibrary.org/ten/ten2.htm​

​

http://www.dpjs.co.uk/blasphemy.html​

​

I go forth and blaspheme. ​

​

​

The Opera was very good indeed.. i counted the amout of swearing.. but read that the amount used to make the christian voice people angry was extrapilated from the chorus line swearing as one (but individualy swearing) so if you wanted 1000s this is true but could be counted in hundreds this is true .. This seems like a very artificial complaint ... ​

​

The thrust (sorry is that sexual, i mean that in a male/female way) is that the Opera was challenging the way the media plays it's game , not the church so much ?.​

 

UPDATE: OK, I've since found out that Blasphemy is in fact illegal. However, there has not been a public prosecution using this law since 1922, and (rightly so) there are moves to have the law repealed. The worse thing I find about this law is that it only covers the Church of England, and none of the other religions established in the United Kingdom (talk about bias).

The only problem is that there are plans to replace it with an even stricter law that will prevent "religious hatred". Now, in theory I'm all for (after all, I believe in promoting religious tolerance), but in reality, this means that people's freedom of speech will be taken away. After all, just talking about something, be it hatred for a religious organisation or it's members, is not the same as acting on that hatred.

 

Hi Amamda!

Yes, whilst I agree in part with you I'd also like to note that although just talking about something isn;t the same as doing it... it could be percieved as incitement?

Don;t know where I stand on this issue as I haven't really taken much interest in it... but just a point

Love Clairexxx

 

I understand your point. I'm just worried about freedom of speech, and what power this new law would give religous organisations (power in dangerous hands, IMO).

Now according to this, we're safe, and will be allowed to continue to air criticism of the church and other religous bodies... but I'm not sure that I fully believe this...

We live in a day and age where religion is no longer needed, and in most cases is more of a drain on society than any help. I believe in religous freedoms, but a religous orginisation does not need any extra power to continue to be religious (after all, religion is a matter of faith, and faith is nothing more than ideas in your head)...

 

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/12/07/natkin07.xml

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,2763,1367887,00.html

I agree that some level of avoidance of offending people is a good idea, its just when i look at it through this particular arguement the christian voice has and especialy the other trouble that provoked violence outside the theatre involving sikhs, it troubles me because these are the same type of people that are intolerant i would imagine .. so in a way no better than those they wish to demonise.

 

Oh yes freedom of speech is very important...

I can;t remember who said it now but... someone once said that freedom of speech is ok for me as I can deal with it responsibily... but what about the other guy

You can't have freedom of speech as long as it suits you... which is what our society seems to think!

So yes I agree with you...

I think nothing is gained by pussy footing around issues...

Having said that, I haven't seen the Jerry Springer thing and doubt I'll bother to go see it... so I'll leave it at that....

Love Clairexxx

 

Freedom of speech is a tough issue. It sounds fine and noble, and it's an ideal we can all support. But are there limits? What if, for example, someone was advocating paedophilia? And what if there was evidence that they were actually having an effect and encouraging more people to abuse children? Where do we draw the line?

 

Again... talking about something is not the same as doing it. Now if someone writes paedophilic litturature, then there is the chance that this person also might take an interest in partisipating in such activities... but the two are not a solid link... People can write crime stories about murder, but not actully be involved in murdering people.

Now fair enough, I'm not saying that people who write about paedophilia are all innocent, and maybe their would be fair cause to lauch an investigation into that person to see if they are indeed planning something, in which case the law can act and stop it.. but it would be a case of acting against the crime itself, not the writing about it.

Do you see what I mean? I know what I'm trying to say, but I don't know if I've explained it correctly.

(PS, I'm not in anyway defending paedophilia, I think it's a sick crime, and people involved in it should be probally be castrated, but this is the example you've drawn up, so it's the example I'm going to use to answer the question).

 

You're not answering the question though. What if there was a demonstrable, causal link between a particular person inciting people towards paedophilia, and an increase in the numbers of people actually practicing paedophilia? In such a situation, silencing the person who was exercising his or her right to free speech would directly save children from being abused. Do you silence them? I know it's an extreme example, but it's important in establishing whether there is or isn't a line in the sand where free speech is concerned. Are we prepared to defend free speech even when it directly causes others to come to harm?

 

Such as the direct link between the bible, and the billions and billions of deaths caused by it over the past few thousand years? Due to this, should the bible be banned? Although personally I would love to see the bible banned, the answer is no... so what's diffrent between the bible, and writings about paedophilia? Within this context, there is none.

Now I'm not saying this is my final decision, but as it stands at the moment, my stance is that freedom of speech is too strong a human right that it can not be taken away. As I said, writing about something is not the same as doing it. If someone writes about abusing children, sure, that person might have a sick mind, but until he acts out what he's writing, he's rightly innocent of any crime, and has his right to freedom of speech.

Is it the fault of the original author that someone else might come along and take inspration from what he has written? People need to take responsability for their own actions, and understand the diffrence between fantasy and reality. If a person can't see the diffrence, then that person mental state needs to be taken into question...

Does that answer your question better? what is your own stance on it?

 

Ummm... there's a massive difference. The bible isn't written with the specific intent of inciting people to acts of hatred and murder. Clearly this isn't the case, since many Christians interpret it in an entirely different light.

So, again, to ask you the question..... if a person was inciting people to abuse children, and people were demonstrably being persuaded to do so by his arguments, what comes first... the right to free speech, or the children's right to live unmolested? In this example I'm not talking about someone just writing about paedophilia who happens to be misinterpreted... I'm talking about direct incitement to such acts. Someone saying "Get out there and do it. You won't believe how good it is. Here's some methods for entrapping children. Here's a list of good drugs for doping them".

What's my position? I don't have one. I think one of the problems of modern society is that we believe everything can be neatly broken down into absolutes. I don't believe in black and white extremes. I believe the world's full of grey areas. I believe free speech is a right we should strive to protect, but I think it's naive to believe that it can ever be an absolute principle. To me, the challenge is how we interpret those grey areas - or indeed given the nature of our society, whether it's even possible. Not all moral conundrums have answers.

 

But the bible has many instances of inciting people into acts of hatred and murder. Alas I can't give you any examples right now, but you can trust they do exist. (I'm still doing research into actual quotes, etc.. but as soon as I can find them, I will post them).

As to your other questions, I choose not to answer them at this point. I gave an answer to a specific example earlier (reserving the right to change my mind in doing so)... like you yourself said (and I fully believe), the world is not black and white, but many many shades of gray.

And so again the whole process of "interpretertation" comes into question... if this new law comes into force, who gets to choose what's classed as inciting hatrid and what's not?

OK, I agree with the princaple of preventing hatrid, and promoting tollerance, but you can't have one blanket rule for such uncertan and individual things.

 

I agree. But most people accept that the bible is a product of its time, and so it can't simply be viewed as a text that incites violence. Of course there are those who'll take it that way, but there's clear room for interpretation.

Well that's the heart of the problem, isn't it? Hence why I don't believe in absolutes, or even answers. I fail to see how it's possible to limit freedom of speech in such a way that the law isn't open to abuse.

Again, I agree with you. But that leaves us with the other side of the problem... what to do about those who incite others to acts of violence. If there was a play being televised that advocated shipping all the niggers back to africa and shooting all the queers, where would we stand on that issue?

 

As you well know, there is no answer...

Obviously we disagree with the last two issues that you've brought into light (at least I would hope that most people would disagree with them). But as much as I disagree with these peoples views, I have to respect their opinion. but opinion is not action. And as long as these people are only *talking* about these things, and not *acting* on them.

And at the same time, I'll be at the other end of the scale promiting things like harmony between the races and genders, etc... doing my bit to try and bring some balance to the world.

 

I honestly have a great deal of sympathy for what you're saying, and I half agree with you. But again, where do you draw the line? What if these people who were advocating shooting queers and deporting niggers were operating in the lead up to a new Nazi Germany? Would their free speech be the important principle, or the lives of the millions who might come to die?

 

Lets go back to what I said before.. a blanket rule will not work, and situations like this need individual attention... I still stand by the view that speech and action are diffrent things..

LOL, i fear we may be going around in circles here... there is no answer... only opinions... So I fear we probally need to call an end to this discussion, other wise it'll never end LOL

LOL, I prefer argueing with religous zealots, they are easier to win against (not that this is an argument in that sence, and there are no winners or loosers, but you know what I mean?)