Of Sense and Censorship and Sea Monsters - Page 2

Originally posted by: wAnNaBeReBel

The whole point of the post was to mock AIB for using too many f**ks to sound cool 🤓

Originally posted by: Franco

Its all about intention . I know if I say Bomb in a airplane/airport I will get bumb rushed or if I go upto Obama's face and say something I will get in trouble . But thats because my intention is evil . The AIB did not have this Satanic plan to bash people . It was not a black ops type secret mission to put down certain cultures. 😆😆 They were just some guys telling jokes . An if that pisses some people off well don't watch it 😆 How hard is that 🤣🤣🤣. I would understand if people were being forced but thats not even the case. I think the FIR's are just stupid .

i agree...it's all about intention.

Originally posted by: wAnNaBeReBel

The whole point of the post was to mock AIB for using too many f**ks to sound cool 🤓

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

A long time back when the KKK were going to hold a rally in my town, some coworkers asked me what I thought of it. They were expecting me to be angry and outraged, but were pleasantly surprised by the fact that I agreed the KKK had the right to assemble peacefully and exercise their constitutional rights. Same for Westboro Baptist church and their "God Hates Fags" rallies. I hated the motherf**ker and hoped he died the most painful death, but he had the right to protest. For me the bark and the bite are two separate things. The bark may lead to the bite. But until and unless there is a bite, you cannot preemptively clampdown the bark.

So you want a society where anything under the roof is allowed huh...

1) Blacks are nothing but modified apes and they should go find the jungle than pollute the society with their dirty skin.
2) Faggots should be beheaded for hunting down the "wrong" hole.
3) Muslims are the scumbags of today's world.
4) Christians should be crucified like Jesus because we have Bush.
5) Indians are all horny rapists.
And yada, yada, yada, I can go on...

Now if such statements and free will to say anything and everything doesn't lead to a dysfunctional or volatile society, I shall be the first to stand in line to defend such a "tolerant" take on freedom of speech. But Oopsie daisy, is this really a "tolerant" society considering it itself goes against the very definition of tolerance for not being able to tolerate views, people, religion or culture one doesn't readily agree with.

Also with your logic, even bullying, verbal abuse etc etc should also be allowed after all they are using their freedom of speech and not necessarily "biting". Just nonchalant barks. It's the victims who shouldn't be affected with such barks.

--------------

Point is freedom of speech ain't really "free". If you really think people won't take offense or get affected regardless of what is being blurted, you don't know much about Human Psyche nor are you aiming for a smooth ride with the already screwed up dynamics of the world. Freedom of speech ain't a matter of black or white or is it mutually exclusive to be abused.

Originally posted by: AllBlacks1

The basic rule of freedom of speech/expression is " Your freedom stops where my freedom begins". So the theory of relativity. My friend can call me anything as long I don't mind but not in front of my whole family or on stage. That's when he crossed his boundries and I am offended. Likewise, I know the limits of what to talk and how to talk to the .. may be 1000s ppl I have came across in my life, sometimes I have gone wrong and hurt some of them. Sometimes they have hurt me.

Now, Zoom out that to 10000000 times, its still same every society, country, religion, showbiz, anything that is far reaching than just personal opinions.

TM, your whole arguments has exactly opposite coin side to it. Like U say, "U can say something that hurt me, but I will still defend ur right to say" What? 😆 We r not Mahatma Gandhis and even he won't agree with that. 😆

Slippery slope, right? So if have censorship and start drawing lines on whats acceptable and what not... and then in no time we will be left with NO voice and others in power will take over?

Hang on, how abt we let lose these dirty minds and let them speak whatever the shit they can come with and make movies with all kinds of filth... no censorship... then? Slippery slope doesn't apply there?

Why do have Governments r in the place? Why do have Police? Let the public do what they want. Let it be the law of Jungle. Even in Jungle, therez a law, There r predators and there r preys.

WHO decides where to draw the line? PUBLIC. Just like in democracy, Ppl have rights to vote and elect or throw a party/leaders, public decides. Therez no universal formula, therez no "one size fits all" rule, therez no "one world". Every society will determine its own standards.

Its like USA trying to force democracy on other countries, but hey, doesn,t that defeat the whole purpose? Doesn' that bend the rules of democracy that Its for the ppl and by the ppl of the country?

So, censorship is needed. I have seen many BW movies as a child that I shudn't have. Like a gang rape in public, goons hitting pregnant woman on her tummy, excessive crying after someone's death, goons rule 90% of movie to show torture and in last 10% they get beaten up... etc..

If censorship is abusing its power, just like any head-of-state of a country, PPl have rights to voice, protest and vote. Therz always gonna be trial-error mechanism to get things right.

And plz, dont comapare one cuture/race/religin/county to another for setting the standards. Even NZ and Aus r so diff. even tho world may think we r same.

No society is homogenize, especially not a country like India. So when you say every society will determine its own standards, but by whose standards?, which sections of society gets to decide that?, this is a nation of contradictions, of compatible and incompatible values, this is the society that sent a space probe to Mars, and this is same society that still uses horoscopes to decide whether two people are compatible for marriage.

India has a very young, English-speaking, liberal, and very westernised growing community of urban youths. They think and speak in English, and for some of them, English is their only language. They are not at all averse to forms of entertainment that would offend traditional conservative Indians. Are we gonna start shunning any forms of entertainment aimed at this young westernised English-speaking audience simply because the conservative Indians are going to be offended?, that when we mean society are only referring to the "majority" group in any given context?

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to do whatever you want, the AIB Knockout was hosted at a venue for people who paid to be there, they didn't do it in a church, temple or mosque. Most people realise what is appropriate and inappropriate in any given context, doctors don't turn up to their surgeries in a bikini, but bikini is appropriate at the beach, similarly the sort of language and humour used in the roast was appropriate, but it wouldn't be appropriate in front of a nursery class.

Originally posted by: .krackjack.

AIB used f**ks to sound funny. We used to do that when we were teenagers. 😆

Okay...no more spamming here. Sorry TM. 😳

Such teenagers always came across wanna be to me, you know the kinds that can be easily fooled to follow the herd...😉

Originally posted by: ShadowKisses

Trying to bridge the topic of free speech with the 'responsibility' to not offend others serves as a distraction and nothing else. The whole "why provoke" mentality upsets me because other than sharing common ground with apologism, it has proven to stifle India's intellectual activity for far too long. and in the case of incidents like the carnage in Paris, this mentality places the blame firmly with the victims rather than their aggressors because people mistakenly believe that their safety depends on simply appeasing to the sensibilities of violent fundamentalists. I imagine the thinking goes along the lines of "you offend fundamentalists, you die - so why provoke?" What people forget is that appeasement never led to anything good, anyways - ref. Churchill and Hitler.

People often say your freedom ends where mine begins -- to that I would counter your right to be offended does not curtail my right to offend and lead an uncensored life. I can offend and will do so when I want to -- I will also defend your right to be offended because free speech is not a luxury, to be only bestowed when circumstances are favourable (i.e. under a veil of decency) but a goddamned right.

As much as I agree with this, is it really a "tolerant" society ?

Originally posted by: return_to_hades

Someone out there probably finds your existence offensive. If you want protection against being offended, then you must cease to exist to extend that courtesy to others.