he might have a duty in a tolerant society to hold back on his right to say staggeringly offensive things, because of the pain he causes
strikes me as a teensy bit inconsistent with
He also argues as if the only duty incumbent on us in a tolerant society is to air our own views. He has the freedom to say we are scum, and we have the freedom to disagree.
i've long argued that the "the right of free speech is tempered by the duty not to offend" argument is simply a way of denying the right qua right, making it a licence dependent on... well, on how we feel about the way it's exercised.
the responsibility which actually binds with that right, as far as i can see, is the responsibility to bear offence short of actual, criminal harm. sacranie wasn't inciting - if anything, i'm inclined to believe that his "our faiths teach us..." phrasing was a sheepish cop-out rather than a dogmatic stonewall - and the fact that he didn't observe that obligation not to bear offence does not absolve us and ours of the same obligation with respect to him.
sure, the argument is always unequal in practice when one party believes it has access to the definitive moral Word on an issue... and sure, it's easier for me to take this position as a big, bulky, white straight male... but i can't rid myself of the notion that intolerance-of-intolerance should absolutely not dress itself in the prohibitive clothes of the intolerance being intolerated. er, if you see what i mean.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
duty, schmuty
Date: 2006-02-12 12:21 am (UTC)he might have a duty in a tolerant society to hold back on his right to say staggeringly offensive things, because of the pain he causes
strikes me as a teensy bit inconsistent with
He also argues as if the only duty incumbent on us in a tolerant society is to air our own views. He has the freedom to say we are scum, and we have the freedom to disagree.
i've long argued that the "the right of free speech is tempered by the duty not to offend" argument is simply a way of denying the right qua right, making it a licence dependent on... well, on how we feel about the way it's exercised.
the responsibility which actually binds with that right, as far as i can see, is the responsibility to bear offence short of actual, criminal harm. sacranie wasn't inciting - if anything, i'm inclined to believe that his "our faiths teach us..." phrasing was a sheepish cop-out rather than a dogmatic stonewall - and the fact that he didn't observe that obligation not to bear offence does not absolve us and ours of the same obligation with respect to him.
sure, the argument is always unequal in practice when one party believes it has access to the definitive moral Word on an issue... and sure, it's easier for me to take this position as a big, bulky, white straight male... but i can't rid myself of the notion that intolerance-of-intolerance should absolutely not dress itself in the prohibitive clothes of the intolerance being intolerated. er, if you see what i mean.