5 ms·

Previously there was a comment that was quite elucidative made by an HN user here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34304824 https://news.ycombinator.com/it

by pen2l 4y ago

Previously there was a comment that was quite elucidative made by an HN user here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34304824 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34304824 In recent years I've come around to viewing the American ideal of absolute "free speech" as not being all that nuanced, particularly because we know know the speed at which viral false and illegitimate claims travel and the slower speed at which reasoned responses to those speech travel. I think we can all agree that artistic depictions of Mohammad, even if they fall squarely under free speech, are something that are of poor taste because they trigger the sensibilities of a large chunk of people that abide to certain customs and norms. The hope here is that these folks come around to their viewpoints and say "sigh, I don't like what you're doing, but I'm just going to turn away". The debate is front and center, let's see how it evolves.

nailer 4y ago
Absolutely disagree. The trend of censoring people that depict Mohammed is relatively recent - nobody cared about the Superfriends episode back around 2000 - and giving in to it gives grounds to the same people that attack ex-Muslims for leaving Islam.
ghaff 4y ago
We can probably all agree that a great many things on the web are considered in poor taste by someone somewhere in the world. That doesn't mean that web content should be limited to things that no one anywhere considers in poor taste.
rootusrootus 4y ago
> I think we can all agree You'd be wrong. Many of us think that judging content by whether it offends someone is a terrible idea. Viewers should self-censor if they find something objectionable rather than subject everyone else to their personal opinions.
- pen2l 4y ago
  This is the kind of take that only exists on HN and is obviously wrong flat on its face if thought through for even a little bit. Someone can and does have the right to tell dead baby jokes to a father who has just lost a child but that doesn't mean it's okay that someone should, and indeed in a civilized and social society there are guardrails to prevent that sort of thing: that someone would get rebuked and if they continue being a jerk, that someone would in some manner be punished or rejected from that local community. We judge the content of what others find offensive all the time, and we even agree that it is subjective, different people of different ages, backgrounds, experiences have different sensibilities, and as social beings we understand and respect this. The internet of course throws a wrench in all of this because it's hard to enforce moderation on a local basis as we do in the real world. But that does not mean that the way we have been living forever goes out the window. I'm not saying we should do away with free speech, rather just that we have to work through things carefully and slowly. My hope is that after a little bit of debate, a liberal attitude prevails in Pakistan. But to respond with how folks are responding in this thread, of just putting gasoline on the fire, that's not really how progress is made, it is how we further elevate and agitate an already volatile happening -- we should probably not do that.
  - whynotmaybe 4y ago
    Yes,... But : To reach Wikipedia, you have to make a deliberate action, it's not like Wikipedia has kids in the street screaming to sell their product. It's not a tv channel broadcasted in some restaurant. It's not a radio you might ear in a bus. That's where the debate should lie, not around religious views because everyone here could find problematic content on Wikipedia.
recuter 4y ago
> I think we can all agree that artistic depictions of Mohammad, even if they fall squarely under free speech, are something that are of poor taste because they trigger the sensibilities of a large chunk of people that abide to certain customs and norms. Nope. But nice try. > particularly because we know know the speed at which viral false and illegitimate claims travel and the slower speed at which reasoned responses to those speech travel. "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes" is not a new observation. This has been abused since antiquity to oppress. Great attitude to have for the Politburo I'm sure. Cardinal Richelieu. Jihadis of all sorts. The Spanish Inquisition (least you get offended I am picking on Jihadis) - No thanks.
eldaisfish 4y ago
Bans on ideas and art rarely work. This is about as effective as claiming territory based on maps that governments force on others - India with Kashmir and Argentina with the Falkland Islands are two prominent examples. The US does not have absolute free speech. No nation does and it is wrong to continue to claim that. What the US has is far fewer restrictions on speech relative to the rest of the world.
_Algernon_ 4y ago
It's not supposed to be nuanced. Nuanced takes on free speech are politically motivated, that is, people who have everything to gain by limiting speech making the decisions. I'd rather have absolute free speech than self-interested dotards limiting my speech. "Poor taste" is subjective. Drawing Mohammad should be legal, even if people don't have to like it. Terrorism in response is despicable no matter what speech occurred beforehand. E2A: https://www.theonion.com/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image-1819573893 https://www.theonion.com/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-ima... (NSFW)
belval 4y ago
> I think we can all agree that artistic depictions of Mohammad [...] are something that are of poor taste because they trigger the sensibilities I disagree, because the slippery slope is VERY slippery here. Eating meat triggers the sensibility of some vegans, so does hunting, something isn't "in poor taste" just because it triggers.
meindnoch 4y ago
>I think we can all agree No.
roncesvalles 4y ago
An encyclopedia only journals what already exists in the world. There already exist many cultural illustrations of Muhammad and that's the only reason why Wikipedia also discusses them. This is a case of shooting the messenger.
Hizonner 4y ago
> I think we can all agree that artistic depictions of Mohammad, even if they fall squarely under free speech, are something that are of poor taste because they trigger the sensibilities of a large chunk of people that abide to certain customs and norms. Nope. Fuck their customs and norms. Out here in the non-psychotic world, we also have "customs and norms". Those include not cutting facts out of our accounts of history, and not telling other people what they can say in general. By the way, those exact same "customs and norms" also say that, although they can keep me from drawing some guy because it's offensive to them, I can't criticize a book that's full of literal, direct exhortations to kill a shit-ton of people, including me personally-- exhortations that have been and still are being acted upon throughout the book's history-- because questioning that book is also offensive to them. In addition to glorifying violence, that book also goes on for page after page denigrating other religions, by the way. When you're prepared to systematically shun (at least) all Abrahamic scriptures and everybody who spreads them, along with all the other "false and illegitimate claims", and along with anything else that conflicts with anybody's "customs and norms", then you'll be in a self-consistent position. You'll still be wrong, but you'll at least be consistent. Ready to go there? By the way, trying frame your position as something that every reasonable person obviously must already accept is a really pitiful rhetorical tactic.

by pen2l 4y ago

nailer 4y ago

Absolutely disagree. The trend of censoring people that depict Mohammed is relatively recent - nobody cared about the Superfriends episode back around 2000 - and giving in to it gives grounds to the same people that attack ex-Muslims for leaving Islam.

ghaff 4y ago

We can probably all agree that a great many things on the web are considered in poor taste by someone somewhere in the world. That doesn't mean that web content should be limited to things that no one anywhere considers in poor taste.

rootusrootus 4y ago

> I think we can all agree You'd be wrong. Many of us think that judging content by whether it offends someone is a terrible idea. Viewers should self-censor if they find something objectionable rather than subject everyone else to their personal opinions.

pen2l 4y ago
This is the kind of take that only exists on HN and is obviously wrong flat on its face if thought through for even a little bit. Someone can and does have the right to tell dead baby jokes to a father who has just lost a child but that doesn't mean it's okay that someone should, and indeed in a civilized and social society there are guardrails to prevent that sort of thing: that someone would get rebuked and if they continue being a jerk, that someone would in some manner be punished or rejected from that local community. We judge the content of what others find offensive all the time, and we even agree that it is subjective, different people of different ages, backgrounds, experiences have different sensibilities, and as social beings we understand and respect this. The internet of course throws a wrench in all of this because it's hard to enforce moderation on a local basis as we do in the real world. But that does not mean that the way we have been living forever goes out the window. I'm not saying we should do away with free speech, rather just that we have to work through things carefully and slowly. My hope is that after a little bit of debate, a liberal attitude prevails in Pakistan. But to respond with how folks are responding in this thread, of just putting gasoline on the fire, that's not really how progress is made, it is how we further elevate and agitate an already volatile happening -- we should probably not do that.
- whynotmaybe 4y ago
  Yes,... But : To reach Wikipedia, you have to make a deliberate action, it's not like Wikipedia has kids in the street screaming to sell their product. It's not a tv channel broadcasted in some restaurant. It's not a radio you might ear in a bus. That's where the debate should lie, not around religious views because everyone here could find problematic content on Wikipedia.

recuter 4y ago

eldaisfish 4y ago

Bans on ideas and art rarely work. This is about as effective as claiming territory based on maps that governments force on others - India with Kashmir and Argentina with the Falkland Islands are two prominent examples. The US does not have absolute free speech. No nation does and it is wrong to continue to claim that. What the US has is far fewer restrictions on speech relative to the rest of the world.

_Algernon_ 4y ago

It's not supposed to be nuanced. Nuanced takes on free speech are politically motivated, that is, people who have everything to gain by limiting speech making the decisions. I'd rather have absolute free speech than self-interested dotards limiting my speech. "Poor taste" is subjective. Drawing Mohammad should be legal, even if people don't have to like it. Terrorism in response is despicable no matter what speech occurred beforehand. E2A: https://www.theonion.com/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image-1819573893 https://www.theonion.com/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-ima... (NSFW)

belval 4y ago

> I think we can all agree that artistic depictions of Mohammad [...] are something that are of poor taste because they trigger the sensibilities I disagree, because the slippery slope is VERY slippery here. Eating meat triggers the sensibility of some vegans, so does hunting, something isn't "in poor taste" just because it triggers.

meindnoch 4y ago

>I think we can all agree No.

roncesvalles 4y ago

An encyclopedia only journals what already exists in the world. There already exist many cultural illustrations of Muhammad and that's the only reason why Wikipedia also discusses them. This is a case of shooting the messenger.

Hizonner 4y ago

> I think we can all agree that artistic depictions of Mohammad, even if they fall squarely under free speech, are something that are of poor taste because they trigger the sensibilities of a large chunk of people that abide to certain customs and norms. Nope. Fuck their customs and norms. Out here in the non-psychotic world, we also have "customs and norms". Those include not cutting facts out of our accounts of history, and not telling other people what they can say in general. By the way, those exact same "customs and norms" also say that, although they can keep me from drawing some guy because it's offensive to them, I can't criticize a book that's full of literal, direct exhortations to kill a shit-ton of people, including me personally-- exhortations that have been and still are being acted upon throughout the book's history-- because questioning that book is also offensive to them. In addition to glorifying violence, that book also goes on for page after page denigrating other religions, by the way. When you're prepared to systematically shun (at least) all Abrahamic scriptures and everybody who spreads them, along with all the other "false and illegitimate claims", and along with anything else that conflicts with anybody's "customs and norms", then you'll be in a self-consistent position. You'll still be wrong, but you'll at least be consistent. Ready to go there? By the way, trying frame your position as something that every reasonable person obviously must already accept is a really pitiful rhetorical tactic.