Free Speech: Is It Fine to Say Something Offensive?

Yet another piece on political correctness! It's cheering the US is the most accepting of free speech. Why isn't the rest of the western world?

http://learningenglish.voanews.com/...fensive-students-college-vietnam/3555231.html

Free Speech: Is It Fine to Say Something Offensive?
October 18, 2016
West Fargo High School journalism teacher Jeremy Murphy talks with senior Elizabeth Ratchenski, left, during a publications class on Friday, Aug. 28, 2015, in West Fargo, N.D. Journalism students returning to West Fargo and other North Dakota public schools last year were able to do their jobs at high school and college newspapers with stronger free-speech protections under state law. (AP Photo/Dave Kolpack)

Pop-out player
Last year, an American research group asked people in 38 countries for their opinions about free speech.

What the researchers discovered may surprise you. They found that people in the United States are the most accepting of free speech, even when the comments are critical of their own religious beliefs.

The Pew Research Center completed the opinion survey. Its researchers said the findings are timely.

They noted that some college officials are debating whether to set up “safe spaces,” or “trigger warnings,” so students can avoid discussions they might finding troubling.

A safe place is a place where students can feel at ease discussing concerns without being judged or criticized. A trigger warning is when a teacher warns that a class discussion or reading might be troubling to some students.

Protests by Athletes

There has been debate in recent weeks about athletes who refuse to stand for the U.S. national anthem to protest racial injustice. Some Americans say athletes should be free to express their concerns about racial injustice. But others say everyone should show respect for the country’s national anthem.

The Pew Research Center said its 2015 survey found that 71 percent of Americans said “people can say what they want.” Sixty-seven percent said that the media can report the news freely.

Pew used its findings to create measures of free expression for all 38 nations it surveyed.

It said the free expression index in the United States is 5.73. That was the highest among the 38 nations in the study.

Pew said the 2nd highest index was Poland, at 5.66, followed by Spain, Mexico, Venezuela and Canada. All these countries have a free expression index of 5.0 or higher, it said.

Countries with Low Free Press Scores

The lowest free expression indexes were in Senegal, at 2.06; Jordan, 2.52; Pakistan, 2.78; Burkina Faso, 2.94; and Vietnam, 2.96.

In the United States, Pew found that 40 percent of Millennials believe the government should protect minority groups against offensive statements. They said the government should take action to stop people from making statements that the minorities consider offensive.

For the study, Pew defined Millennials as people born after 1980.

The percentages of people who say the government should stop offensive statements is lower for older Americans, the group said.

In July, a Pew report found 59 percent of Americans agree that “too many people are easily offended these days over the language that others use.” It found a lower percentage, 39 percent, agree that “people need to be more careful about the language they use to avoid offending people with different backgrounds.”

A group called the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education opposes moves to limit free speech on college campuses. Nico Perrino speaks for the foundation.

Staffers for Foundation for Individual Rights in Education meet in Philadelphia.
“American citizens have a long tradition of meeting speech they find offensive with more speech, not censorship,” he said.

But Perrino is troubled by efforts to limit free speech at some colleges.

“This is a concerning development,” he said. Over the years, he noted, students have been among the strongest supporters of free speech.

Some Subjects Trigger Troubling Responses

But there is support for safe spaces and trigger warnings to protect students from material or opinions they might find troubling.

A University of Chicago student recently wrote an opinion piece for The New York Times newspaper.

The student, Sophie Downes, expressed opposition to the university’s decision to stop trigger warnings and safe spaces. A professor who provides a trigger warning can help students get ready emotionally to deal with difficult subjects, she wrote.

Downes said the political debate in the United States lately “has become pretty ugly, so it’s not surprising that students are looking for places to have civil discussions.”

At some schools, supporters of trigger warnings say that a student who has been physically attacked might suffer emotional harm by a talk that includes violent language.

This year, the University of Chicago wrote a letter to its new students, saying it will not cancel speakers who might express opinions that some students might find troubling.

The letter said the university wants students “to speak, write, listen, challenge and learn without fear of censorship."

I’m Bruce Alpert.

Alpert reported this story for VOA Learning English. George Grow was the editor.

We want to hear from you. Write to us in the Comments Section and share your views on our Facebook Page.

_______________________________________________________________

Words in this Story

trigger -- n. something that causes something else to happen -- for example, a subject that requires a professor to warn students that some might find the discussion troubling

comfortable -- adj. not causing any unpleasant or troubling feelings

athlete -- n. a person who is trained in or good at sports, games, or exercises that require physical skill and strength

national anthem -- n. a song that praises a particular country and that is officially accepted as the country's song

survey -- n. an activity in which many people are asked a question or a series of questions in order to gather information about what most people do or think about something

index -- n. a number that shows how something is changing or performing

ugly - adj. unpleasant to hear

challenge -- v. to say or show that (something) may not be true, correct, or legal

 

"No, you don't [He takes it off] 'Cause I lost my real hand plantin' the flag when we took back Halley's Comet! Yet it was worth it, so much do I love that flag. [The bench sobs] I love it even more than I love my seven wives - that's right, I'm a polygamist! [The court "boos"] Yet I would gladly eat a flag myself, had I not used my intestines as a rope to hoist a flag made of my own skin, if it would protect the freedoms of the proud people who salute that flag. [The court cheers] Freedom such as polygamy! [The court "boos"] I rest my case. [He puts his hand back on and his leg falls off] Whoa, jeez!" - Old Man Waterfall

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." - To a lot of people this American meme is very stupid. Why do you think the rest of the world should want to be like you Americans? Why do you protect the hate speech of racist groups like the Klu Klux Klan? Because dems not fighting words? That is stupid. You liberty fanatic Americans and French cause a lot of problems by encouraging hate speech - like the Charlie Hedbo cartoons for example.

In Australia we have anti-vilification laws and they are not perfect but the point of them is to keep public discourse civil and to make things like the offensive Charlie Hedbo cartoons illegal.

And hate speech is against International Law and your American constitution does not trump International Law. In my opinion by protecting racist groups that use hate speech, like the Klu Klux Klan, USA is guilty of human rights abuses. The US constitution does not trump international law.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter...rms_of_Racial_Discrimination#cite_note-Art4-7

And no. We do not want to be like you Americans.

edit - And the other thing with you Americans is that you encourage the telling of lies in your society. Look in to why the makers of any film that claims to be a 'true story' can get away with calling it a 'true story' when it is not in any way shape or form. It is legal to lie in USA and this mentality is fully embraced by your corrupt corporate media.

 

I think people's agenda to purposely be offended by things that weren't intended to be offensive is where the problem lies. If someone intends to be offensive, then that is when they should be at the very least frowned upon but probably not offered any legal consequence. However, there should be no restriction to their job or other private companies that desire to offer consequence of their own.

However, we should not tolerate this new era of mental weakness where people tend to be offended buy everything that is said even in cases that it is true. And in many cases they tend to do it on purpose to Simply get someone in trouble likely to just further their agenda. Agenda pushing is the biggest issue I see in American politics today and it directly reflects in essentially any and every issue we have.

To give an example. It's not racist to point out black people commit much more violent crime than other races, when discussing crime in America.

The name "dallas cowboys" isn't intended to offend those who live in Dallas and aren't cowboys. Same with redskins. So to be offended is ridiculous.

When I say "my (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)" used as a term of endearment to a friend, its ridiculous to coddle someone nearby listening in who gets offended.

The examples could be endless but I hope I made my point.

 

The USA signed it and ratified it however is clear when we did our Constitutional protections will take priority in all cases, so its mute, unless you can force the USA to comply outside our reservations with the document.

 

Whatever, just as long as you people know that you are the odd ones out and that no we do not want to be like you.

Human rights abusers.

 

Drama queen.

I could care less what the rest of the world wants to act like in reference to this topic. They could all require themselves to reassure each other as they all walk by that they do not hate each other. Doesn't mean we should have to.

 

That sir is sickening. People like you are why freedom is all but dead in much of the world. The worst human rights abuses In the world are those who would sanitize speech to their liking because 'to their liking' is always in a state of flux. The klan sir are odious knuckle dragging bigots but if you silence them they will not be less so and you will only succeed in deluding your self as to their existence.

 

Freedoms like polygamy.

Blah blah. If the Klan turns up in public spouting hate in Australia we will arrest the mother%$%$ers.

Human rights abusers.

 

You'd be speaking Japanese if it wasn't for the US.

Constitutional protections don't come and go on a whim. Nor are they up for debate.

 

Isn't this censorship?

 

And then you'd be as much a human rights abuser as they are.

 

Well that would be pretty cool, but USA doesnt get to decide what a human rights abuse is - the UN and the international community does.

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

Hate speech is not free speech. And you Americans seem to be the ones that waffle on about hate speech more than anyone for all the crapping on you do about your freedom of speech. You Americans are always arresting someone or firing someone because of something they wrote on twitter or facebook.

The human rights stuff is nonsense anyway - it is very much like the set of rules that the pigs wrote for the animals in Animal Farm isnt it.

Four legs good. Two legs bad.

 

Nothing is off limits for comedians, but they are judged harshly by their words. Look at Kramer's career ending standup act where he "stood up" to the hecklers. Hate speech is free speech but you have to be prepared for the backlash.

 

We have to protect the liberal snowflakes.

 

i used to want to visit australia, but now i'm glad i never got around to it. i never realized it was such a nation of pansies. when i was quite young i remember a little saying, "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me". over the years i've been called some truly vile things and i've always taken a great deal of pride in the fact that i've always been able to take such abuse with a smile, even as a child. it is, after all, the adult thing to do, the civilized thing to do. it is rather disturbing that so many folks seem to need to be protected from simple words. despite what the snowflakes may claim, you have no right to be protected from being offended. it's a cold, cruel world out there, filled with murderers, rapists and thieves, and it seems a waste to spend so much time and energy passing and enforcing legislation designed to keep the weak from getting their precious little feelings hurt.

 

This post makes a HUGE amount of sense.

I am of East Asian descent, and I have been called ch*nk before. By an attractive member of the opposite sex, no less. But I just shrugged it off (well, after shedding a few quiet tears at home actually) but it had never occurred to me to ask the government to pass laws to ban this kind of speech. People have the right to say whatever they want, regardless of whether one might agree with or be offended by it. To me, this is the true marker of being an advanced civilization.

 

in order for a civilization to advance, it's people must advance. they must become stronger and wiser and they must be allowed to do this on their own. no amount of legislation or force can advance a civilization or its people. it has become more than obvious that all of these snowflakes running around and demanding to be protected are not merely failing to advance, they are moving backward.

 

Hey, have you seen the Bruce Lee movie? *****s can jump more higher! I love that bit.

Where I live we have these commercials on a local radio station for a Kawasaki dealer - and the guy doing the voices for the ads pretends to be a Japanese sensei and he has a Japanese student - and he says stuff like - Student - ooooooooohhhhhhhh masser! What does green mean? Sensei - Go? Student - No. Sensei - Environmentally friendly? Student - No. Sensei - What does green mean? Student - Ka - waaaaaaaaa - SAKI! Student - Go green lighting, go green lightening goooooooooo!!!!

The ads arent all that funny but the Japanese accent is hilarious. They are also funny for how shockingly politically incorrect they are. I cant believe that nobody has complained about these ads but we really dont get a lot of Japanese people around these here parts. What do you think? Do Asians accents sound funny to you? Are these Green Lightening Kawasaki radio ads ok do you think?

What about Asian stereotypes? Asian stereotypes made Bruce Lee cry apparently. What if the majority agreed that Asian stereotypes are cool again. Would that be cool with you?

edit - What if I put up a sign on my front lawn that said - No dogs or Asians? Would that be cool with you?

edit - And what iuf you didnt see the sign or you cant read English - and you knocked on my door - and I opened the door and saw you and said - HEY! DIDNT YOU READ THE SIGN? GET THE %$%$ OFF MY LAWN *****! AND GO BACK TO CHINA!

[video=youtube;VGxDRCZTLbI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGxDRCZTLbI[/video]

 

The first amendment protects free speech,
opinions are not considered as an act of defamation but false statement that harms reputation is not included.
There is that limitation called malice.

- - - Updated - - -

 

I'm sorry, but you are under arrest for hate speech for calling Americans "Human rights abusers".

Do you see how this can backfire on you? How do you define hate speech? Is criticizing a culture hate speech? Is criticizing religion hate speech? Is criticizing the opposition hate speech? Is criticizing the government hate speech? Dictators through the ages have limited free speech in the name of the "greater good".

Democracies and science both depend of open lines of communication to work. If we start limiting speech because someone finds it offensive, pretty soon, all speech will be limited because all speech will offend someone.

What you do in your own country is your own business, but it saddens me to think that a society would choose to limit the ability to exchange information in the Information Age. Of course, the irony is that you can stop all the hate speech in your country you want, but you can't stop the hate speech coming in through the Internet.

 

One of the things to be admired about the USA is the right to free speech.

 

If those ads played in my neck of the woods, I would be boycotting the Kawasaki dealer and telling all my family and friends to boycott them. If you put up a racist sign on your lawn, I would shame you on Facebook, Twitter and on local news. This is how free speech is supposed to work. If something offends you, you can use your right to free speech to tell everyone that you are offended, like what you are doing now. In this way, we can debate the issues, get all the facts, and make up our own minds. I don't need the government telling me what I should, or should not believe in. I definitely don't trust my fellow countrymen to know what is the best for me (Really? Trump is the best you guys can come up with?).

 

How many Kawasakis do you and your friends and family own anyway? Boycotts need to be made illegal. Your little Kawasaki boycott would likely do nothing but yes social media can be used to damage business with boycotts and it needs to be illegal. All boycotting of Israel must be banned for example.

And speaking of Jews - Jews are pretty big on preventing hate speech arent they? Because a guy called Hitler went around spouting hate speech against Jews - and he wrote a best selling book that is racist as hell and attacked Jews - and the majority of Germans ended up agreeing with this guy and they took away German Jews citizenship and then not long after that Hitler and his Germans were trying to exterminate every Jew in Europe and then the world. See that is the danger with free speech isnt it? The mob cannot be trusted and you can debate and give them all the facts in the world but they arent interested in facts or common sense and the last thing we want is for them to make up their own minds. Do you see?

[video=youtube;7hyD2yAZFwE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hyD2yAZFwE[/video]

edit - I tell you who had it worked out - it was the Catholic Church. Free speech is fine if it is in a suitable forum. Martin Luther had a forum to debate his ideas - but they were not acceptable. He was given a chance to debate and he should have accepted the outcome or advocated his position in a civilized and approved way - but instead he chose to act like a barbarian. What the Catholic Church should have done is killed him when he refused to recant his writings. He should have been burned at the stake. Free speech is fine if it is the right forum and the judgement of the debate is accepted. And we cant just allow anyone to have free speech - the right to debate topics should be earned and only qualified people should have the right to debate in approved forums.

Protests should be illegal. Public political speech should also be illegal. People should not be allowed to put up political signs on their front lawns. The mob cannot be trusted so they must be given representatives that are confirmed by the state. If they have representatives then there is no real need for democracy or elections is there? Not the way it is in the west. Just because they do not have western style democracy in places like China does not mean that there is no public debate or that the people are not represented. And I like that China does not allow dangerous public speech. We should be more like China.

 

Sir you misunderstand. You get to say anything you want, you are not however guaranteed an audience. You can be as much an SOB you want to be provided you don't physically attack some one else, or encourage such attacks upon others. I have every right to condemn your words but I have no right to attack you physically or advise others to do so. People who don't give a damn about human rights come up with this crap like two legs bad four legs good.

 

I don't trust most of them to know what's best for them let alone me. Really Hillary is the best you guys can do?