Guest Slinky Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I had to google who the hell is Anita Sarkeesian. Stopped reading at feminist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I believe that going public was pretty successful in starting the discussion. Though I only did a quick skim of the person's twitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blodhemn Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I had to google who the hell is Anita Sarkeesian. Stopped reading at feminist. Feminist + TedTalk, high fiving Al Gore in the front row. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte Carlo Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Bruce, Bruce, Bruce. You are a totalitarian-in-fluffy-cotton. My opinion is a simple one. Simple opinions are usually the most dangerous. Especially when applied to complex concepts such as freedom of speech. ... [A]nd its based on what I see works in South Africa and is in our constitution. I'm not about to discuss in detail the politics of SA, which has its problems like everywhere else except writ large. Poverty, corruption, crime, HIV, the legacy of the ANC... if it's so great why is London full of South Africans who hate the place? My point is what works for you in SA might not work for everyone else. Or should they just shut up? We believe in free speech but not if it impacts the dignity of a person. Then you don't believe in free speech. It's like saying, 'we believe in hamburger, but not in eating cows.' So in other words say what you want but don't say it in way that is offensive or hurtful. You have no right to be not offended. Assaulted, sure. Offended? No way. Under your definition Martin Luther would never have nailed his declaration to the door. Its obvious to me and I don't understand why people don't emphatically agree with me. Troll or child-like naivety? Only you can decide. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceVC Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 (edited) Bruce, Bruce, Bruce. You are a totalitarian-in-fluffy-cotton. My opinion is a simple one. Simple opinions are usually the most dangerous. Especially when applied to complex concepts such as freedom of speech. ... [A]nd its based on what I see works in South Africa and is in our constitution. I'm not about to discuss in detail the politics of SA, which has its problems like everywhere else except writ large. Poverty, corruption, crime, HIV, the legacy of the ANC... if it's so great why is London full of South Africans who hate the place? My point is what works for you in SA might not work for everyone else. Or should they just shut up? We believe in free speech but not if it impacts the dignity of a person. Then you don't believe in free speech. It's like saying, 'we believe in hamburger, but not in eating cows.' So in other words say what you want but don't say it in way that is offensive or hurtful. You have no right to be not offended. Assaulted, sure. Offended? No way. Under your definition Martin Luther would never have nailed his declaration to the door. Its obvious to me and I don't understand why people don't emphatically agree with me. Troll or child-like naivety? Only you can decide. Oh Monte stop using Strawman arguments to support your view that words don't have an impact on our dignity. When did I ever say that South Africa is a paradigm of social perfection? When I ever say we don't have high unemployment? In fact how are those points in anyway relevant to my statement. I said " the South African Constitution allows free speech but not if it impacts the dignity of a person". You can dismiss what the South African Constitution says but 48 million people will disagree with you This is not uncommon, in fact in the UK people have been charged for making derogatory racist comments on Twitter. So lets address your own country and how you feel about that law. Is it unfair that numerous people are prosecuted for there opinions on Twitter...those are just words after all? Edited March 7, 2014 by BruceVC "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte Carlo Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I believe in the sanctity of free speech. 'It's obvious to me and I don't understand why people don't emphatically agree with me.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceVC Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I believe in the sanctity of free speech. 'It's obvious to me and I don't understand why people don't emphatically agree with me.' Can you answer my question because it is relevant. In the UK they charge people for Twitter comments, do you think the UK believes in free speech? "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte Carlo Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 (edited) Freedom of speech is and always has been conditional. If you threaten someone's life or try to encourage others to do so then I agree prosecution may be appropriate. However, some of the Twitter material that has been prosecuted has been disproportionate in my humble. By the way, I'm not an online ambassador for the UK justice system. Although, as an aside, I think Common Law systems are superior to Statute Law. Edit - I just re-read and noticed you mentioned racially inflammatory material. There has been a raft of perfectly sensible UK law on this dating back to the 1930s. If you go race-baiting online then of course you might reasonably expect to be prosecuted. Where the threshold lies is another matter, quite properly decided by the courts. Edited March 7, 2014 by Monte Carlo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceVC Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 (edited) Freedom of speech is and always has been conditional. If you threaten someone's life or try to encourage others to do so then I agree prosecution may be appropriate. However, some of the Twitter material that has been prosecuted has been disproportionate in my humble. By the way, I'm not an online ambassador for the UK justice system. Although, as an aside, I think Common Law systems are superior to Statute Law. Once again you seem to be avoiding a direct question so I'll ask it differently " do you personally feel that the UK can say it believes in free speech. Can you say you feel you live in county that allows free speech" Edited March 7, 2014 by BruceVC "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte Carlo Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Yes and yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceVC Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Yes and yes. Thank you for being honest. I hope now you can see my point. My countries laws are basically the same as yours. We allow free speech but not if it is considered offensive or hurtful or insulting to a person. I'm not sure how you want to define examples in the UK where people have been prosecuted with using certain words on Twitter but the reality is the UK is a Democracy that believes in free speech. This is the point I have been trying to make for ages, there is no contradiction when saying " I live in a society where we believe in free speech but certain words and descriptions of people aren't acceptable for public use" "Abashed the devil stood and felt how awful goodness is and saw Virtue in her shape how lovely: and pined his loss” John Milton "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.” - George Bernard Shaw "What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead" - Nelson Mandela Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noviere Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 (edited) Anita Sarkeesian used unlicensed artwork in her kickstarter pitch Author tried communicating to no avail, so she took it more public. Did Tammy create Princess Daphne? Does she own the rights to her? Does anyone know how artist's rights work in regards to fanart? Can artists re-draw another persons IP and then sell it/license it? I ask, not because I think it's cool that Anita used the art without permission... I'm just wondering if the artist has a leg to stand on. Edited March 7, 2014 by Noviere 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tajerio Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Yes and yes. Thank you for being honest. I hope now you can see my point. My countries laws are basically the same as yours. We allow free speech but not if it is considered offensive or hurtful or insulting to a person. I'm not sure how you want to define examples in the UK where people have been prosecuted with using certain words on Twitter but the reality is the UK is a Democracy that believes in free speech. This is the point I have been trying to make for ages, there is no contradiction when saying " I live in a society where we believe in free speech but certain words and descriptions of people aren't acceptable for public use" I assume that when you say "offensive or hurtful or insulting" you mean "on the level of hate crime relating to creed, color, sexual orientation, or personal disability" because otherwise that's just deeply ****ed up. Anyway, that proves my point, right? Free speech has nothing whatsoever to do with the wretched faux social justice journalism of RPS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurlshort Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Anita Sarkeesian used unlicensed artwork in her kickstarter pitch Author tried communicating to no avail, so she took it more public. Did Tammy create Princess Daphne? Does she own the rights to her? Does anyone know how artist's rights work in regards to fanart? Can artists re-draw another persons IP and then sell it/license it? I ask, not because I think it's cool that Anita used the art without permission... I'm just wondering if the artist has a leg to stand on. I have no idea how the legal implications work out, but it is very bad form to just yank an image off google images and use it for your own marketing material. Sarkeesian should at least recognize the artist. It would seem to contradict feminist ideals to take advantage of this female artist in the name of open source art. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadyCrimson Posted March 8, 2014 Author Share Posted March 8, 2014 Threads have been filling up fast lately. New part incoming. “Things are as they are. Looking out into the universe at night, we make no comparisons between right and wrong stars, nor between well and badly arranged constellations.” – Alan Watts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts