In recent years, playing the "I am offended" card has been getting more and more common. It starts with the assertion that people can claim a "right" not to be offended, and that this right trumps other peoples' rights to free speech. As the media, government bodies, commercial firms, universities (universities!), etc. keep caving in to complaints from allegedly offended groups, and censoring speeches, articles, advertisements, books, and even T-shirts, so there are more and more "I am offended" complaints. The bar for offence keeps getting lower and lower. People with an axe to grind realise they can gain enormous unchallenged power over people they want to silence - all they have to do is claim to be offended. What's worse is that those doing the censoring come to believe they actually have the moral high ground. When people are told that they can win any argument they like by claiming that they’re offended, that they can shut down any debate they like by claiming they’re offended, that they can get a university campus to ban the playing of a pop song they happen not to like by claiming they’re offended, that’s a power that very quickly goes from being applied rarely to being applied routinely. They come to believe that it is the people saying provocative, unusual, challenging, controversial things who must be in the wrong. I would like to see the "I have a right to free speech" card played more often, and for it to trump the "offended" brigade.
Good point raised Pete. However my question would have to be are we free and to define freedom (Not the dictionary definition either)
With freedom of speech comes responsibility. It is often the responsibility that is omitted and the claim for free speech vehemently claimed. Me, I am unoffendable. Call me what you like. It will be true. I am a cunt.
Furthermore, the superficial, politically correct tacit approval exhibited by those bystanders who uphold that persons right to be offended, thus applying pressure onto the 'wrong doer' to apologise or retract their comments...the people who defend the position of offence rarely even know what theyre actually defending. Another irritation of mine are those who are offended by proxy...thats an entirely new thread. We all have the right to be offended, but we all the right to offend.
Love Police: Jewish Foreskin Joke Offends Policewoman - YouTube she's remarks that she's offended about 5 mins in...silly cow. worth watching the whole vid though.
Too right Mr C. The sooner people stopped getting offended the sooner we can all take the piss out of each other and have a laugh. Words are only offensive if YOU PERSONALLY CHOOSE TO BE. The words are not necessarily offensive, although many of mine are. fuckshittitpisswankcuntbollocks. I'm a ginger tight fisted sweaty sock. So fucking what? I'm neither ginger, nor mean but I do not mind being referred to as such as long as I can call you whatever stereotype or generalism fits for the laugh. People in geneeral need to be brought up working 'on-site' with the lads. The banter and piss taking will give you a skin thicker than you can imagine.
I agree entirely with Pete - there is an entire "industry" that revolves around telling people that offending someone, anyone, is wrong. Sod that ! I especially dislike people who tell other people that they should be offended by something... Being able to say what you like must always be tempered with responsibility but the UK has gone way too far with the "I'm offended, therefore you are wrong" argument. Another problem with this is that it's now become accepted ( by politicians and BBC executives especially ) that just saying "I'm sorry, I did not mean to cause offence" is an acceptable response to someone who is rightly, justifiably, offended and says so. I think this is because most cases of "taking offence" are just another ploy to win the argument. To paraphrase Adam Hills - "you lot, stop being dicks !"
I'm old enough to say what I like and if someone is offended,....tough........get an effing life, wimp.
Should we ban muslim extremists from shouting abuse at our soldiers parading on Remembrance Sunday...for me this is a test as to whether someone really means they agree with freedom of speech or they only want it on their terms. The fact people are being disciplined, sacked and indeed taken to court because their conversation is overhead by others and those others complain as being offended is a sign of how bad things are. its a Yes from me Dermot
It's legitimate for "Free Speech" to be restricted by censoring things like: * Threats of death or violence * Libel (publishing lies about a person) * Breach of copyright (publishing material belonging to someone else) * Breaking a court order. It is not legitimate, in my view, to restrict free speech because someone else is offended by what is said or written. There is a line to be drawn, and that is where I draw it. The authorities, including the police, seem to draw their line in a different place these days.
taking the piss out of each other or sense off humor if you like, is very much for me anyhow defines Britishness.
Freedom of speech would be utterly worthless if it only meant freedom for people to say things you agree with. The whole point is for people to be able to say things you disagree with, things you are offended by, things you find repugnant, things you find heretical, etc. The word "offence", in the sense of a criminal offence under the law, tends to get morphed into "offence" meaning anything someone claims to be offended by. As for shouting abuse at soldiers, it depends what you mean by abuse - threatening to kill them is rightly a criminal offence (but one which the police neglect to prosecute), disagreeing with military operations is not.
There's a basic misunderstanding that most people have. Offence cannot be given, only taken. You can say the same thing to two different people and one might take offence, one might not. To those that take offence at anything said, I say "tough, be offended". If you take offence at something* someone says, they haven't committed a crime so don't act like they have. * within the laws of the land, of course - some things are criminal to say but even they might not be taken in offence by some.
I think the big problem with muslims shouting abuse at servicemen comes down to this - they are the first to complain if any one offends them, or says anything disrespectful about their relegion BUT they are the first to disrespect other people. Freedom of speech is a great thing and should be defended. I will respect and defend anyone's right to say what they like AS LONG AS they show me the same respect.
If anyone said to the late Chris Hitchens that they were offended, he would respond, "I am still waiting to hear what your point is".
It’s all very well saying people should not take offence but there are so many levels at which you can take offence. Try these three scenarios given in order of potential offensiveness: Take the joke about a Jew’s foreskin (or lack of it) made by the self-aggrandising pseudo-intellectual in the clip that Funky posted? It was clearly said with the sole purpose of eliciting a response from the unfortunate copper and she duly obliged. All very silly and blown out of all proportion by the two protagonists but the copper felt that she had to take offence to the comment. Using words like Nigger, Wog, Paki, etc etc I don’t think are criminal but are usually used in an offensive manner and are thus seen as terms of abuse. I don’t think these words should be banned by law but I would hate to see a return to the attitudes of the 60’s and 70’s when they were commonly used. However many people seem to be frightened of the words and use phrases like “the N word” in their place, some people take offence at the use of the words and some will no doubt take offence to my even writing these words on this post Suppose I am of the belief that racism or sexism is good and correct and that I start to promote these views in public and say that women should be subservient and that slavery should be reinstated for coloured people. I suspect that this would be illegal and classed as a hate crime (I’m sure that Pete will either confirm this or correct me if necessary) and that people would be offended. But, as long as I’m pressing for a change in the law and not inciting people to go out and cause trouble for blacks or women is it really wrong? However, some people will take offence to that sort of argument even being put forward. Depending on your views you may, or may not, take offence at some point along the scale of offensiveness I have tried to create. But if not, is there a point where you would take offence? Maybe someone slagging off your daughter, your mother, or your spouse? Is it reasonable at some point to take offenceand use that as a defence?
But the servicemen are there to help defend the free speech that all members of society should be able to enjoy. Whether it is a muslim or peace protester shouting in the face of a serviceman on Remembrance Sunday it is their right and one that has to be defended. However be very careful as once the personal space has been invaded and you become a threat and the little bit of spittle that just hit the serviceman's cheek because you exercised you free speech with a little too much enthusiasm may just cause him/her to revert to type and cause you pain. Yorkie
