We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
You have no right to not be offended, part II Just as I suppprt the right to publish drawing that annoy the hell out of some Muslims, I also support the right to publish drawings which annoy the hell out of some Christians.
If some find provocative images of Jesus offensive, they should feel free to express their outrage… but should not feel free to express their outrage to their legislators, because the implication is clear that they want them to use the violence of law to prevent themselves from being offended… to which I can only say, they have no such right.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
One point Perry:
With a small number of exceptions such as the very few nut-jobs who bomb abortion clinics in the US, Christians have a tendancy to protest using almost touchingly non-violent methods. Unlike the followers of big Mo, Christians don’t burn down embassies, blow themselves up in Pizza Hut, behead journalists, slaughter Russian schoolkids or slit the throats of flight attendants in order to fly 767s into office blocks.
I think Perry’s point was that any law is enforced through violence or the threat of violence. It is one of the reasons I don’t believe any person on the Left can call themselves a passifist.
Nick M
A statement of the perfectly obvious which needs repeating depressingly often. And what we see at the ‘Insurgent’ (heh), via the link, is a bunch of wasters who’d wet their prissy little student knickers at the idea of publishing the Mo’toons of Terror. Like the rest of them, these student insurgents are only interested in thumbing their noses at those who’ll do rather more than complain to a bunch of legislators.
Frankly, the Catholic League (idiots) will do more to spread terror amongst the student publishers of the paper by threatening to tell their parents. No allowance for a month, no dope to smoke for a month, more wet knickers.
Its important to remember that a lot of people in the US were offended by ‘piss christ’ not because it was obnoxious towards christians, I’m not one, but because it was government funded.
If anyone wants to promote or attack religion let them do it with their own money.
Actually this attack on a specific faith was paid for, either in part or in full, by the state as it is a state university.
A thought experiment: would it be ok to publish hard porn, or even soft porn – on the cover of a student paper ?
Should not the University authorities exercise some supervision of these things ? Kids sometimes need guidance in what is proper or acceptable and what not. It is the duty of adults to provide such guidance – parents and teachers.
By the way – universities do have PC speech codes – don’t they ? Insulting blacks or muslims or jews is probably forbidden. And Christians ?
Apparently this newspaper is not funded by the university…
So unless I misunderstand what they mean by that (always possible), it is not being done with taxpayer’s money.
“The Student Insurgent is not owned, controlled or published by the University of Oregon and is funded with student fees. . ”
“student fees” ?? Voluntary fees ? “fees” usually involves some money you have to pay. Same as taxes. Fees for what ? For a student paper or for attending university in general ?
But, as I said above, it’s not the method of funding that is the issue, but some norms of conduct in civilized society. The University should surely have a say in what you can and what you cannot circulate or promote on campus.
“A thought experiment: would it be ok to publish hard porn, or even soft porn – on the cover of a student paper?”
Personally I think anything that distracts students from what they’re supposed to be doing – that is binge drinking and diving naked into duck ponds – is a bad idea.
Perry, with respect, I didn’t like the suggestion of equivalency in your piece. “publish drawings that annoy the hell out of some Muslims” and “which annoy the hell out of some Christians.
As we know, there is a difference between being very annoyed (a fly buzzing around a room is very annoying; some jerk sitting behind me in his car who sounds his horn the nanosecond the light turns green annoys the hell out of me) and being catapulted into a towering, blind, murderous, seething rage.
The Muslims are not annoyed by the cartoons. They want to kill. They want to burn embassies. They want to issue death threats and follow through on them. They want to bully other people with violence into obeying their own religious strictures.
There is no comparison.
A bit off topic – but just to remind you what real totalitarian censorship looks like. The only case (that I know about) when someone was actually prosecuted for publishing the muhammad caricatures was in Russia, where the editor of a provincial newspaper who published the pictures was found guilty and fined, and the newspaper was closed. Those who read Russian – enjoy.
Verity the question is what doesn’t send Muslims into a into a towering, blind, murderous, seething rage? Well besides surrendering to them and being dhimmified.
AID – Very little, I agree.
I beg to differ. If some people want to scream and shout and make a fuss about this, I really have no problem with that. The ‘Insurgent’ also has no right not to be the object of scorn and hatred from the people they provoke.
HOWEVER, then some people start ‘telling their legislators’, what that means is they would like things to be changed so that if people piss on their religious (or whatever) sensibilities, the boys in blue come around with their trunchions and take you away to a place behind bars. Not really so different from Muslim violence, just a better mannered sort of violence in defence of their sensibilities.
Oh, Perry, come, come! You are stretching it and you know it.
The Christians may well approach their legislators asking for legislation. This is a perfectly legal and rational thing to do. Just because they approach their representative doesn’t mean he will take up their cause.
I don’t think most Christians want to have people they disagree with banged up by the boys in blue! And let us say there was a law against obscene representations of the Virgin Mary or whatever (which there is not, which means that the majority of the voters do not want to pursue having such laws), then again, calling the police to enforce such a law would be a sane, rational thing to do.
There is absolutely no equivalence with the insanity of offended Islam, which acts 100% illegally in destroying property, attacking other human beings, burning public embassies, rampaging through streets and issuing freelance death threats.
There is no comparison.
Verity,
Thank you. Unlike the previous posters you actually understood what I was getting at.
There is a world of difference between saying, “we don’t like this” and actually killing and maiming people.
Let’s have a concrete example. Pope John Paul II publically forgave his attempted assasin (a word of Arabic origin, oddly enough). The ayatollahs in Iran still insist that even if Salman Rushdie lived the most perfect life theoretically possibe his sin was so great that he is doomed to the lowest circle of hell.
Salman Rushdie didn’t put a couple of 9mm Browning rounds through the abdomen of a guy he had nothing against personally. He did something much worse. He wrote a book…
I am not and never have been a Catholic (or any other form of Christian). I do, though, recognise the difference between genuine spirituality and the insane rantings of a C7th camel-fucker and pederast.
Verity writes:
There is absolutely no equivalence with the insanity of offended Islam, which acts 100% illegally in destroying property, attacking other human beings, burning public embassies, rampaging through streets and issuing freelance death threats.
These things appear to be not only legal but actively encouraged by the government in places like Iran and Syria. But the legitimacy of state legality is the very thing which Perry is objecting to here.
Nick M,
The ayatollahs in Iran are as much a legally constituted authority as the governor of Oregon. There is no relevant difference that you are identifying here.
Nick M – Sorry, I wasn’t supporting your point. I was making my own.
The Muslims did not succeed in making what Jyllands-Posten illegal either, but they certainly tried! The fact they may not succeed does not make the fact they try any less reprehensible and that applied to Christans trying to pass blasphemy laws too.
So what? I am not talking about ‘most Christian people’, I am talking about the ones who ‘told their legislators’. They clearly do indeed want people who offend them banged up by the boys in blue, else why talk to LEGISLATORS? When people do that, they usually want legislation!
People have as much right to express outrage as people do to draw the things which outrage them… however the very notion that this is a legitimate area for legislators to have any say on whatsoever is what object to. I do not give a damn if it is Muslims or Christians or whatever who are ‘talking to their legislators’ in order to prevent themselves being offended by pictures.
Despite agreeing with you that we do not need any blasphemy laws or similar, the point is, the Christians go the legal route by approaching their legislators. The Muslims rampage through streets threatening violence, burning embassies, threatening “the real holocaust” and “your own 9/11”, they destroy private and public property, they are violent and out of control.
That said, no, of course no one has the “right” not to be offended. I thought we had settled that a couple or three months back!
While it is a fairly infantile act to set out to cause gratuitous offence, I agree with Perry, that Christianity should not be protected by law any more than any other religion. Blasphemy laws are an obscenity in themselves. I have no desire to be forced to live by the irrational and illogical precepts of a code devised thousands of years ago and interpreted by various contemporary nut-jobs – whether they be Christian, Hindu, Muslim or Zarathustrian.
I know that Perry and I have pretty fundamental differnences in other areas, but this is one on which I think we agree – the state has no part to play in defining morally acceptable conduct.
Perry, I’m just trying to understand how far you feel this should go. When you say that people should not feel free to talk to legislators about this, do you feel that there should be any sanction against those who do?
I assume, incidentally, that you agree that there should be state sanctions preventing people from destroying the homes, cars, and offices of those who offend them.
ian says: “I have no desire to be forced to live by the irrational and illogical precepts of a code devised thousands of years ago and interpreted by various contemporary nut-jobs – whether they be Christian, Hindu, Muslim or Zarathustrian.”
The only religion that grabs extra-territorial, so to speak, rights to legislate the rights of non-adherents is Islam. The Hindus and Jews do not want you in their religions, so you are safe there.
I am always amused by the venom with which you fundamentalist atheists make your arguments. You are almost as fanatical in your non-religious despotism as the Islamics are in their religious despotism.
Surely the point is that they can talk to whoever they like, but religion should be nothing to do with the state and the state should have nothing to do with religion. It doesn’t matter one jot what the comparative reactions are of Christian and Muslim. After me – it isn’t anything to do with government
Bless you, verity. I’m a hardcore libertarian, but I sure get tired of being told I’m an idiot because I don’t tow the atheist line. (I’m Catholic.)
The ‘legal’ route means that you pass a law and then use violence by setting the cops on people who offend you. Sorry but I fail to see how that is any less reprehensible than some muslims not bothering to intermediate the state in their use of force against people that annoy them.
One does not ‘talk’ to a legislator in the way you talk to your spouse or neighbour or Vijay at the corner shop. ‘Talking’ to your legislator is just another way of saying you want a law enacted, which in turn is just another way of saying you want force used if ‘x’ happens.
Perry, you seem to be incorrect both in stating that the Insurgent newspaper is not funded by the University of Oregon (via fees charged to all students), and that this was an attempt to outlaw any attacks on Jesus/Christianity/Catholicism/religion.
I followed the links in the WND article in your post, and from there managed to find the text of the actual letter that Donohue sent to the Oregon officials. Seems pretty harmless to me, especially considering no beheadings, shootings, riotings, holocausts, European 9/11’s, etc. are threatened. In fact, I’m not seeing any threats in the letter whatsoever. I’m guessing that it’s the closing paragraph (I assume you’ve actually read the letter in question) which put you over the edge:
I suppose you might, at a stretch, interpret this as a request for the passage of blasphemy laws. I’d make sure to do some calisthenics first, though, or you’re likely to pull a muscle.
Also on their site is a response to the WND article you linked to, which includes the following paragraph:
So despite the breathless rhetoric of your post, I’m just not seeing any parallels whatsoever between
1. hordes of Muslims — urged on by their religious leaders — violently marauding worldwide over political cartoons printed in a Danish newspaper: killing people, destroying property, and waving signs threatening further violence to all infidels if they fail to bow to Islamic law, and
2. one guy writing a letter to public officials complaining about obscene cartoons being published in a campus newspaper funded by a public university.
By trying to draw a parallel between the two responses, I think all you’ve managed to do is highlight the gaping chasm of difference between them.
I’m with Mark Adams. So many duck ponds, so little time.
Shad writes: 1. hordes of Muslims — urged on by their religious leaders — violently marauding worldwide over political cartoons printed in a Danish newspaper: killing people, destroying property, and waving signs threatening further violence to all infidels
Quite. But the only people who died worldwide during Motoon rage were Muslims. Does anyone have Charles Darwin’s cellular?
If the university does indeed support the newspaper with money, then it is certainly entitled to control what it does.
However that is not what my article was about at all. It was the line about ‘talking to legislators’ that is the hot button issue. That is just code for passing laws. Now IF a law that got passed that said “no upsetting people in tax supported institutions”, I would not get too worked up (though of course I am against tax being used in the first place but that is a seperate issue). However I suspect that what they were ‘talking’ to their legislators about are blasphemy laws.
Folks who cannot see the similarity between this and the ‘Satanic Cartoons’ issue are quite mistaken in my view.
I’m glad you’re conceding the point that since (not “if”) the University does indeed support the campus newspaper in question with required fees paid by the entire student body, then it is certainly entitled to exercise some control over what the newspaper does — or to withdraw the funding provided if it fails to adhere to University standards.
That correction simply makes this yet another instance of religious people civilly complaining about a government-funded activity that they find offensive, which does seem to entirely undercut the thrust of your rant. One of these things is not like the other, etc.
It seems I was overly generous in my earlier assumption that you had actually read the letter that you’re throwing the tantrum over. I linked to the actual letter in my previous post. After you read it, perhaps you’d be so kind as to quote the text of the letter where Donohue asks the legislators to pass any laws.
Oh, and remember, not all of us have the benefit of your evil-Catholic-codeword-to-English decoder ring, so please include both the original “code words” from the letter along with the “what this really means” translation. Otherwise we poor benighted folk who are stuck reading the plain language might continue to not see the equivalence you’re trying to draw between Reaction A (one guy writing a letter) and Reaction B (swarms of fanatics butchering people and rioting in the streets).
Well Shad!
The ‘legal’ route means that you pass a law and then use violence by setting the cops on people who offend you. Sorry but I fail to see how that is any less reprehensible than some muslims not bothering to intermediate the state in their use of force against people that annoy them.
Er, you’re assuming that such a law actually gets passed, which is extremely unlikely in the relevant jurisdiction (OR, USA), and if one was passed, it would be immediately challenged in the courts and struck down on Constitutional grounds.
I daresay everyone involved in the matter is quite aware of this, and is merely going through a bit of social ritual as a way of expressing their objections in a socially acceptable (and non-damaging of persons or property) manner.
Compare and contrast with the ‘Islamic’ response to the MoToons, and please let us know if you still think they are both equally reprehensible.
“While it is a fairly infantile act to set out to cause gratuitous offence… ”
It is worse than infantile … it is rude, tasteless, ugly, offensive.
It would be even if the man depicted wasn’t Jesus.
It is ok to complain to legislators that the state financed university does a lousy job of educating the kids.
Nice going, Shad.
I do not support laws forbidding the nasty drawings of Jesus – show him rapeing the Virgin Mary if you want to. God may have a discussion with you about it in due course – but you will get no trouble from me (actually I do not think you would get much trouble from God, who I do not believe sends people to Hell for such things, – but that would lead us into theology).
However, I do object to paying for them.
When artists in the United States scream “artistic freedom” they often mean freedom to loot – via Federal, State and local grants of taxpayers money.
And it is the same here in Britain.
Perry-
I am one of those bad Christians who have talked with my legislators about profane art. And I can *assure* you that myself and the thousands of others (including Jews, Athiests, Deists, etc..) were absolutely not interested in blasphemy laws as you understand them. To us the *blasphemy* was that no-talent scoundrels masquerading as “artists” were looting the goverment treasuries to pay for “art” that no one would otherwise purchase. For example, the “piss-christ” earned it’s “artist” a tidy $15,000 from Uncle Sam. Not bad for wee-ing in a jar. I am not Catholic, but if the Catholic League is involved, they are probably calling attention to an egregious act of social parasitism. Also, be aware that at US colleges, the student fees are required, as noted above. And, you have no power over how this money is used. All sorts of groups that could not get funding on their merits use the student fees scam as training wheels to learn how to loot the government treasuries at a larger scale, after graduation.
Absolutely! This sentence deserves wider recognition.
Perfect bullseye!
Shad…
So which part about “written to the governor, every state legislators” did you not understand?
Precisely – you don’t write to legislators unless you are looking for legislation.
As a state university that used tax payer funding to put private schools out of business, the University of Oregon is a product of legislation. Student fees are mandatory. If you intend to recoup a little of your taxes by attending school there, you have no choice but to give some of your money to this publication. That’s how student fees work here.
Just out of curiosity, how do you express dissatisfaction with how your taxes are being spent except by taking the matter directly to the legislature that’s doing the spending?
I think there may be some loss of clarity on exactly what the libertarian issue in this case is. Free speech should not be subsidized. If the market won’t pay to hear what you want to say, you may not use the threat of violence to get the money to say it. As a taxpayer funded institution with mandatory student fees, that is exactly what is happening here.
If there are in fact, no student fees (or other ‘public’ funding) involved, then I agree with the post entirely.
It’s bad enough that you won’t even admit that you were flat-out wrong about the paper not being funded by the University, but continuing to misrepresent the contents of the actual letter under discussion is a lame dodge. Since you insist on continuing to pretend that Donohue demanded laws be passed, here’s the full text of the letter for everyone to read without having to click on any links:
So I ask you again, for the third time, please point out where in the letter he asks for laws to be passed (and keep in mind, most of us mortal beings are restricted to reading the actual text, and don’t have the evil-Catholic-codeword-to-English translation powers that you do). It would be a pleasant change if you’d actually present some evidence in support of your arguments. Failing that, I’d hope you have the decency to acknowledge that your attempt at drawing equivalence between a reaction of writing a letter and a reaction of butchering people and rampaging in the streets is just inane.
Weeks late, but just for the record…
“It’s bad enough that you won’t even admit that you were flat-out wrong about the paper not being funded by the University…”
Actually, there are a couple of wrinkles. The Insurgent is not “funded by the University” in the sense that money comes out of the general fund. No public cash is involved. It is funded (along with all the other student groups) by a dedicated fee collected from all students whether they like it or not, which is allocated by the student government. According to the US Supreme Court in Southworth, this process has to be “viewpoint neutral”, meaning in this case that the Jesus stuff cannot be used as a reason to get rid of the Insurgent. The administration can decide that students should organize their own damn activities and dismantle the entire fee system (and this would surely be a good thing) but they can’t pick and choose.
So no, the Catholic League (and now Bill O’Reilly) aren’t trying to pass a law; they’re just trying to unilaterally overturn a Supreme Court decision. It’s still bad news.
More (much, much more) here.
You seem amazingly credulous. You do not write to a lawmaker unless you want to influence their lawmaking.