Offended?

[cybercoma]

Do people have the right NOT to be offended?

It seems to be increasingly popular to think that it is one's right to have people who offend them silenced by the government, universities, media, etc.

So I'm wondering, do we have a right NOT to be offended? If so, where do we draw the line? If not, what gives these groups the right to silence people?

[Charles Anthony]

I am presuming you are talking (pardon the pun!) about verbal assault.

Morally, nobody has the right to NOT be offended. That would not make sense.

The only instance is where a person is verbally threatened with physical assault on body or property.

People want to impose their morals on others.

People do not have the "right" to silence other people but rather they have the force and we (the "rest of the people" involved) have the complacency.

[Leafless]

Do people have the right NOT to be offended?

So I'm wondering, do we have a right NOT to be offended?

Absolutely not.

Simply think of the countless different variables that exist in the minds of individuals that determine the thought process to interpret what constitutes as being 'offensive'.

No standard could ever be created as to constitute 'what is or what is not offensive'.

[BubberMiley]

It seems to be increasingly popular to think that it is one's right to have people who offend them silenced by the government, universities, media, etc.

It seems to be increasingly popular to adopt a victimization complex and think that those who disagree with you are somehow silencing you, even though you are pretty well free to say whatever you want to say.

[cybercoma]

If I were to make broad sweeping generalizations about minority groups, should I be silenced because they may be offended? Should a student fail a course in University because the topic of a paper they write is offensive to someone or some group?

[BubberMiley]

If I were to make broad sweeping generalizations about minority groups, should I be silenced because they may be offended?

Nope. Say what you want in your next post. I won't hold it against you.

Should a student fail a course in University because the topic of a paper they write is offensive to someone or some group?

Not necessarily. But if it's a poorly written paper that isn't very well thought out and doesn't present its argument very well, they shouldn't blame their failing grade on not being "politically correct." That excuse is getting stale.

[Charles Anthony]

If I were to make broad sweeping generalizations about minority groups, should I be silenced because they may be offended?

No, you should not be silenced. However, you should expect people to stop listening to you, to stop taking you seriously and to be ostracized.

By the way, if an ostracized person falls down and cries out in a forest, does that person make a sound?

Now, back to serious matters:

Should a student fail a course in University because the topic of a paper they write is offensive to someone or some group?

Rule #1 in school (or life, for that matter): The student should expect to fail if the paper offends the teacher.

What? You think students are there to learn subjects in courses?!?!?

[geoffrey]

Freedom of speech shouldn't be limited. Don't read the book, turn off the TV, walk away.

[BubberMiley]

Freedom of speech shouldn't be limited. Don't read the book, turn off the TV, walk away.

Now tell me how someone exercising their free right to be offended limits another's speech.

[geoffrey]

Freedom of speech shouldn't be limited. Don't read the book, turn off the TV, walk away.

Now tell me how someone exercising their free right to be offended limits another's speech.

Eh?

[ClearWest]

Freedom of speech shouldn't be limited. Don't read the book, turn off the TV, walk away.

Now tell me how someone exercising their free right to be offended limits another's speech.

The right to be offended isn't the question. I don't think any of us want that right... unless you enjoy being offended. It's the right to NOT being offended. Or, as I think it should be more appropriately titled, the Right to Silence People Who Offend You--which I don't think is a fair right at all, because anyone could be offended at anything. And different people have different moral standards.

Me, for instance, I find swearing offensive. Does that mean I should complain to parliament to have swearing banned from TV and newspapers? A profanity-free world sounds appealing to me, but the unintended consequences is militant censorship. Ultimately, Force.

So, my friendly alternative is to choose not to watch/listen to such media content. People who enjoy the swearing are free to bask in their filthiness, while I am free to live without such vulgarity. Everybody wins!

[Michael Hardner]

There is no legal "right" to not be offended. However, many institutions prefer to not offend their patrons and the public, so they take it upon themselves to impose a kind of protocol on what its representatives say. In the best cases, these actions constitute good sense and common decency but in the worst cases they represent cultural whitewashing and even censorship.

But I have yet to hear anyone win any kind of case based on the fact that they were offended.

If I were to make broad sweeping generalizations about minority groups, should I be silenced because they may be offended? Should a student fail a course in University because the topic of a paper they write is offensive to someone or some group?

You're drifting into a grey area here, though. Promoting hatred is illegal. Two questions arise: Should it be ? And is giving offense the same as promoting hatred ?

A few years ago I would have said promoting racial hatred shouldn't be illegal, but I have changed my mind on that based on inflammatory articles and radio programs I have heard in the US.

In North America, where citizens repeat the mantras of civic duty by rote as they were taught them, without truly understanding what is behind them then there's always a danger that a well articulated case for racial hatred can take hold. For that reason, I favour the current Canadian legislation as a last firewall against racial instigation.

The other question is: Is offense the same as hatred ? This is really the trickiest area, as the offense happens in the mind of the listener, reader or viewer. For the most part, I would say that offensive is just offensive and not dangerous but one needs to consider the audience, the messenger and the forum.

Some newspaper columnists have been writing about the reluctance to tie terrorism to Muslims. Fair enough. We don't expect our news media to deny reality. But once that point is conceded, where do we go from there ? The choices are, roughly, scapegoating or engagement.

[geoffrey]

Any laws against hate speech are really degrading to everyone. Do you, or the government, not have faith that people are smart enough to not listen to the guy in the KKK outfit?

It also creates a possible arbitary situation, where one person (judge, ect.) can declare someone's opinion hateful based on their own biases. There isn't enough case law on the topic to be adequately protected IMO.

[JerrySeinfeld]

If I were to make broad sweeping generalizations about minority groups, should I be silenced because they may be offended? Should a student fail a course in University because the topic of a paper they write is offensive to someone or some group?

A sidebar: ever notice that it's OK to make broad sweeping generalizations, as long as they are POSITIVE?

"The Chinese are a very intelligent people"

"The Japanese have a great work ethic"

"Italians are a passionate bunch"

HOORAY for multiculturalism - let's all have a festival! (we're not prejudiced)

But if you make the sweeping generalizations negative...

"Muslims blow themselves up more than other cultures"

"Russians aren't very bright"

"The French are snots"

Then it's frowned upon. Strange though - alkl of the above statements are accurate lol JOKING!!!!

[Michael Hardner]

JS - I agree, although it's still all right to make light fun of some peoples, IMO. Scots, for example, seem to be made fun of quite a lot.

[geoffrey]

"The French are snots"

Then it's frowned upon. Strange though - alkl of the above statements are accurate lol JOKING!!!!

Me, you, bike racks after school.

That's the way 'offensiveness' should be settled.

[BubberMiley]

Nothing worse than people feeling all hurt and victimized because someone called their negative generalization racist. Get over it.

[Army Guy]

Michael Hardner:

There is no legal "right" to not be offended. However, many institutions prefer to not offend their patrons and the public, so they take it upon themselves to impose a kind of protocol on what its representatives say. In the best cases, these actions constitute good sense and common decency but in the worst cases they represent cultural whitewashing and even censorship.

But I have yet to hear anyone win any kind of case based on the fact that they were offended.

What about the Fed governments Harrassment laws, which state harrassment is anything that a indiv percieves to be offensive, degrading, or not proper behavior. such as offensive lang, offensive behavior, etc etc.

In which case opens up a whole can of worms because it allows indiv to precieve anything as offensive.

I can not comment on what is happening outside the dept of national defense but these new harrasment laws have taken a whole new meaning into curtailing our freedom of speach.

For instance in a private conversation with close friends all male, a "dirty" joke was told, this joke was overheard by a third party sitting in another part of the office whom considered it to be offensive, charges were laid, also the same joke was retold by another person, again someone took offense and in the investagation it was revealed that this person heard it from the orginal source which again charges were laid again'st both.

The punishment included a 300.00 fine for the orginal story teller, plus a 3 day harrassment seminar.

Now imagine if you will a bunch of soldiers not allowed to tell dirty jokes or for that matter curse like a bunch of sailors...is our freedom of speach being curtailed ? every day these laws are testing new ground, for what is percieved offensive, with serveral cases of men charged for scratching themselfs in public, actually just outside the mens bathroom. but you get the piont. Now alot of these cases don't make it to trial (DND Court) but i've personal taken this harrassment course 3 times now for cursing.

Unsolicited words or conduct which tend to annoy, alarm or abuse another person. An excellent alternate definition can be found in Canadian human rights legislation as: "a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome." Name-calling ("stupid", "retard" or "dummy") is a common form of harassment. (See also sexual harassment

[Figleaf]

[q

Edited July 18, 2007 by Figleaf