Nina Korchok says, "Many questioned why a magazine would print cartoons that could be viewed as both hateful and discriminatory." Nowhere in this well reasoned essay is the background of what the notion of free speech means. The idea is to defend speech that you hate. There is no need for defend speech that you like and and with which you agree. It is hateful, offensive speech that needs to be protected. In ancient Greece there was a 12 hundred year tradition of free speech. No laws, no constitutional amendment. They celebrated diverse ideas, going as far as to allow St. Paul to preach in Athens. The Greeks did not have to contends with the feminization of their nation. Or the effort to create the therapeutic state, both of which focus on feelings rather than reason. An example of the misguided academic movement is the recommendation by Prof. Bishara that, "media outlets can make their audiences as inclusive as possible." Speech and news that appeals to all persons may no longer be news but pablum and propaganda.
[From article]
Many questioned why a magazine would print cartoons that could be viewed as both hateful and discriminatory. Many still questioned how a magazine would continue to publish cartoons of the prophet after such a tragedy.
[. . .]
Bishara also explained how media outlets can make their audiences as inclusive as possible.
[. . .]
“But they also regard humor as something above and beyond that, that part of their freedom is to be able to make fun of absolutely everything.
http://tuftsdaily.com/arts/2015/01/22/walking-tightrope-censorship-free-speech/
Walking the tightrope between censorship and free speech
BY NIKA KORCHOK
JANUARY 22, 2015
Tufts Daily
Tufts Daily
No comments:
Post a Comment