Sloboda govora - da li postoji granica?

[Прслин]

Видео сам већ твоју исправку, не мења датум ништа осим што још јасније показује колико је фулао. Он је човек врло сугестиван и брз, шармантан у изразу, а физички инфериоран, наравно да се увек слуша са осмехом што после резултира чешањем по глави када се види колико тога он убаци у млин без икаквог основа. Но, свеједно, човек који толико воли филм и заслужује да се доживљава више као забављач него као мислилац.

[Radoye]

Kako mi je sad samo laknulo. Vec sam mislila da moram da navezbam crtanje karikatura Muhameda za moju posetu Frnacuskoj, posto tamo to svi rade pa sam nekako ukapirala da je obavezno.

 

Pa nisam ja ovde tvrdio da ako vec u Rusiji progone pedere da je onda OK i da u Francuskoj vredjaju muslimane!

 

Ono, nije zabranjeno, nema zakona koji to brani, ali jebemmumater kome to treba i kakvo dobro ce iz toga da izadje?

[Krošek]

pozivanje na odgovornost u koriscenju slobode izrazavanja znaci mogucnost refleksije posledica na drustvo/zajednice od pojedinaca koji gaze granice. sta mi uopste znamo, van reakcije ovih par ludaka, o tome? da li je bilo vredno zivota? da li bi ih nacrtali/objavili da su znali da ce ova dvojica da ih izresetaju...

 

to je kao da pitas (hipoteticku) salterusu u banci koja je poginula u pljacki da li je vredno zivota da radi taj posao. da li bi i dalje radila kao salterusa da zna da ce nekog dana poginuti na tom radnom mestu? pa sigurno da ne bi, ali to nista ne govori o njenom radu. nije uzrok zlocina u njoj vec u pociniocima.

[yolo]

to je kao da pitas (hipoteticku) salterusu u banci koja je poginula u pljacki da li je vredno zivota da radi taj posao. da li bi i dalje radila kao salterusa da zna da ce nekog dana poginuti na tom radnom mestu? pa sigurno da ne bi, ali to nista ne govori o njenom radu. nije uzrok zlocina u njoj vec u pociniocima.

 

ajd idi spavaj, pliz. 

[Krošek]

ne mogu, nisam jos popio caj

[malkin]

Teju Cole u Njujorkeru:

 

 

 

Unmournable Bodies

 

A northern-Italian miller in the sixteenth century, known as Menocchio, literate but not a member of the literary élite, held a number of unconventional theological beliefs. He believed that the soul died with the body, that the world was created out of a chaotic substance, not ex nihilo, and that it was more important to love one’s neighbor than to love God. He found eccentric justification for these beliefs in the few books he read, among them the Decameron, the Bible, the Koran, and “The Travels of Sir John Mandeville,” all in translation. For his pains, Menocchio was dragged before the Inquisition several times, tortured, and, in 1599, burned at the stake. He was one of thousands who met such a fate.

 

Western societies are not, even now, the paradise of skepticism and rationalism that they believe themselves to be. The West is a variegated space, in which both freedom of thought and tightly regulated speech exist, and in which disavowals of deadly violence happen at the same time as clandestine torture. But, at moments when Western societies consider themselves under attack, the discourse is quickly dominated by an ahistorical fantasy of long-suffering serenity and fortitude in the face of provocation. Yet European and American history are so strongly marked by efforts to control speech that the persecution of rebellious thought must be considered among the foundational buttresses of these societies. Witch burnings, heresy trials, and the untiring work of the Inquisition shaped Europe, and these ideas extended into American history as well and took on American modes, from the breaking of slaves to the censuring of critics of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

 

More than a dozen people were killed by terrorists in Paris this week. The victims of these crimes are being mourned worldwide: they were human beings, beloved by their families and precious to their friends. On Wednesday, twelve of them were targeted by gunmen for their affiliation with the satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo. Charlie has often been often aimed at Muslims, and it’s taken particular joy in flouting the Islamic ban on depictions of the Prophet Muhammad. It’s done more than that, including taking on political targets, as well as Christian and Jewish ones. The magazine depicted the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost in a sexual threesome. Illustrations such as this have been cited as evidence of Charlie Hebdo’s willingness to offend everyone. But in recent years the magazine has gone specifically for racist and Islamophobic provocations, and its numerous anti-Islam images have been inventively perverse, featuring hook-nosed Arabs, bullet-ridden Korans, variations on the theme of sodomy, and mockery of the victims of a massacre. It is not always easy to see the difference between a certain witty dissent from religion and a bullyingly racist agenda, but it is necessary to try. Even Voltaire, a hero to many who extol free speech, got it wrong. His sparkling and courageous anti-clericalism can be a joy to read, but he was also a committed anti-Semite, whose criticisms of Judaism were accompanied by calumnies about the innate character of Jews.

 

This week’s events took place against the backdrop of France’s ugly colonial history, its sizable Muslim population, and the suppression, in the name of secularism, of some Islamic cultural expressions, such as the hijab. Blacks have hardly had it easier in Charlie Hebdo: one of the magazine’s cartoons depicts the Minister of Justice Christiane Taubira, who is of Guianese origin, as a monkey (naturally, the defense is that a violently racist image was being used to satirize racism); another portrays Obama with the black-Sambo imagery familiar from Jim Crow-era illustrations.

 

On Thursday morning, the day after the massacre, I happened to be in Paris. The headline of Le Figaro was “LA LIBERTÉ ASSASSINÉE” Le Parisien and L’Humanité also used the word liberté in their headlines. Liberty was indeed under attack—as a writer, I cherish the right to offend, and I support that right in other writers—but what was being excluded in this framing? A tone of genuine puzzlement always seems to accompany terrorist attacks in the centers of Western power. Why have they visited violent horror on our peaceful societies? Why do they kill when we don’t? A widely shared illustration, by Lucille Clerc, of a broken pencil regenerating itself as two sharpened pencils, was typical. The message was clear, as it was with the “jesuischarlie” hashtag: that what is at stake is not merely the right of people to draw what they wish but that, in the wake of the murders, what they drew should be celebrated and disseminated. Accordingly, not only have many of Charlie Hebdo’s images been published and shared, but the magazine itself has received large sums of money in the wake of the attacks—a hundred thousand pounds from the Guardian Media Group and three hundred thousand dollars from Google.

 

But it is possible to defend the right to obscene and racist speech without promoting or sponsoring the content of that speech. It is possible to approve of sacrilege without endorsing racism. And it is possible to consider Islamophobia immoral without wishing it illegal. Moments of grief neither rob us of our complexity nor absolve us of the responsibility of making distinctions. The A.C.L.U. got it right in defending a neo-Nazi group that, in 1978, sought to march through Skokie, Illinois. The extreme offensiveness of the marchers, absent a particular threat of violence, was not and should not be illegal. But no sensible person takes a defense of those First Amendment rights as a defense of Nazi beliefs. The Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were not mere gadflies, not simple martyrs to the right to offend: they were ideologues. Just because one condemns their brutal murders doesn’t mean one must condone their ideology.

 

Rather than posit that the Paris attacks are the moment of crisis in free speech—as so many commentators have done—it is necessary to understand that free speech and other expressions of liberté are already in crisis in Western societies; the crisis was not precipitated by three deranged gunmen. The U.S., for example, has consolidated its traditional monopoly on extreme violence, and, in the era of big data, has also hoarded information about its deployment of that violence. There are harsh consequences for those who interrogate this monopoly. The only person in prison for the C.I.A.’s abominable torture regime is John Kiriakou, the whistle-blower. Edward Snowden is a hunted man for divulging information about mass surveillance. Chelsea Manning is serving a thirty-five-year sentence for her role in WikiLeaks. They, too, are blasphemers, but they have not been universally valorized, as have the cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo.

 

The killings in Paris were an appalling offence to human life and dignity. The enormity of these crimes will shock us all for a long time. But the suggestion that violence by self-proclaimed Jihadists is the only threat to liberty in Western societies ignores other, often more immediate and intimate, dangers. The U.S., the U.K., and France approach statecraft in different ways, but they are allies in a certain vision of the world, and one important thing they share is an expectation of proper respect for Western secular religion. Heresies against state power are monitored and punished. People have been arrested for making anti-military or anti-police comments on social media in the U.K. Mass surveillance has had a chilling effect on journalism and on the practice of the law in the U.S. Meanwhile, the armed forces and intelligence agencies in these countries demand, and generally receive, unwavering support from their citizens. When they commit torture or war crimes, no matter how illegal or depraved, there is little expectation of a full accounting or of the prosecution of the parties responsible.

 

The scale, intensity, and manner of the solidarity that we are seeing for the victims of the Paris killings, encouraging as it may be, indicates how easy it is in Western societies to focus on radical Islamism as the real, or the only, enemy. This focus is part of the consensus about mournable bodies, and it often keeps us from paying proper attention to other, ongoing, instances of horrific carnage around the world: abductions and killings in Mexico, hundreds of children (and more than a dozen journalists) killed in Gaza by Israel last year, internecine massacres in the Central African Republic, and so on. And even when we rightly condemn criminals who claim to act in the name of Islam, little of our grief is extended to the numerous Muslim victims of their attacks, whether in Yemen or Nigeria—in both of which there were deadly massacres this week—or in Saudi Arabia, where, among many violations of human rights, the punishment for journalists who “insult Islam” is flogging. We may not be able to attend to each outrage in every corner of the world, but we should at least pause to consider how it is that mainstream opinion so quickly decides that certain violent deaths are more meaningful, and more worthy of commemoration, than others.

 

France is in sorrow today, and will be for many weeks come. We mourn with France. We ought to. But it is also true that violence from “our” side continues unabated. By this time next month, in all likelihood, many more “young men of military age” and many others, neither young nor male, will have been killed by U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan and elsewhere. If past strikes are anything to go by, many of these people will be innocent of wrongdoing. Their deaths will be considered as natural and incontestable as deaths like Menocchio’s, under the Inquisition. Those of us who are writers will not consider our pencils broken by such killings. But that incontestability, that unmournability, just as much as the massacre in Paris, is the clear and present danger to our collective liberté.

 

Edited January 10, 2015 by malkin

[Budja]

Ovo je prvi nivo reakcije koja je tipicna za liberalnog zapadnjaka. Ali niko tu ne prebacuje nikakvu odgovornost na zrtve vec radi nesto sasvim drugo sto je mozda preuranjeno ali ce to morati da se uradi pre ili kasnije: pokusava da raspetlja suprematiscki diskurs zapadne civilizacije prema imigrantima muslimanima koje je primila u svoje okrilje. Ja sam danas kacio dva linka koji problematizuju razlicite diskurse CH karikatura koje sasvim jedno znace za francuskog intelektualca koji u somotskom sakou i kariranim plisanim papucama uz casu bordoa lista CH a sasvim drugo za sina alzirskog emigranta iz predgradja Marseja koji 14 sati dnevno raznosi picu a petkom ide na dzamiju i slusa hodzinu propoved u kojoj se ponavlja da niko ne sme ismevati Proroka i da je to smrtni greh. Meritum ovih karikatura je dinamicka kategorija u zavisnosti od toga ko je tumaci ali moram da kazem da nije neocekivano da deo jedne drustvene zajednice koji zivi u vrsti fakticke opresije koja ima svoje duge korene u kolonijalizmu ne prepoznaje ono sto ti i ja tumacimo kao temeljnu vrednost ljudskog drustva, neprikosnovenu slobodu govora, vec naprotiv, kao jos jedan dokaz svoje potcinjenosti unutar zapadne hemisfere i upravo je to ono sto ovu vrsta humora koju je CH povremeno demonstrirao u glavama ovih ljudi cini zastrasujuce bliskim nekim drugim karikaturama ili ilustracijama koje evropska kultura neguje od prakticno 18. veka cije su krajno ishodiste bile gasne komore.

 

O tome govori tekst koji sam danas kacio, evo ovde direktan link:

 

http://paper-bird.net/2015/01/09/why-i-am-not-charlie/

 

 

Problem, kao sto Gandalf, Radoye, Adam i Malkin ilustruju nije u slobodi govora kao apsolutnoj, vec upravo asimetricno relativnoj vrednosti.

 

 I to ne samo u autocenzuri (sta se ne sme objaviti o pirncu Endrjuu i Izraelu u religijskom smislu) vec u smislu reakcija na nesto takvo sto bi se objavilo.

 

Da ilustrujem jos jednim primerom o kome smo imali vatrenu raspravu. Kada je Rozeta razbaruseni naucnik nakacio polugole zenske na svoju ruznu sulju (sloboda govora, jel te) digao se mainstream sto se zavrsilo izvinjenjem naucnika.

 

Ja pretpostavljam da bi mozda reakcije izolovane muslimanske zajednice bile drugacije da je isti taj mainstream rekao da su karikature CH golo govno, da su ruzne, da su mozda i rasisisticke, da je podignuta neka tuzba, i da se CH zivinio i rekao jeli smo govna. Mozda bi se, samo tim podignutim glasom, jel te, osetili priznatim i postovanim. Ali, koliko je meni poznato, to se nije desilo. 

 

Dake, politically correct speech kao oblik ogranicenja slobode govora je dobrodosao u mainstreamu kao vid emancipacije nekih manjina ali ne i drugih. Asimetricnost slobode govora i reakcije na istu je tu najveci problema a ne sloboda govora kao takva.

 

 

Moj stav je tu da je sloboda govora dobrodosla kao prilicno apsolutna i manje arbitrarna u odnosu na politicku korektnost ogranicenja, a kroz debatu i jacinu argumenata se onda utice na javno mnjenje. Neka cveta hiljadu ruznih sulja i ruznih karikatura, ali za sve, bilo da su zene, Jevreji, gejevi ili muslimani.

[boshoku]

asimetricno relativnoj vrednosti

šta ti to znači? kako vrednost koja je relativna, može spram druge biti (a)simetrčna? "asimetrično" je superfluous

[Ivo Petović]

Da ilustrujem jos jednim primerom o kome smo imali vatrenu raspravu. Kada je Rozeta razbaruseni naucnik nakacio polugole zenske na svoju ruznu sulju (sloboda govora, jel te) digao se mainstream sto se zavrsilo izvinjenjem naucnika.

 

Ja pretpostavljam da bi mozda reakcije izolovane muslimanske zajednice bile drugacije da je isti taj mainstream rekao da su karikature CH golo govno, da su ruzne, da su mozda i rasisisticke, da je podignuta neka tuzba, i da se CH zivinio i rekao jeli smo govna. Mozda bi se, samo tim podignutim glasom, jel te, osetili priznatim i postovanim. Ali, koliko je meni poznato, to se nije desilo. 

 

Dake, politically correct speech kao oblik ogranicenja slobode govora je dobrodosao u mainstreamu kao vid emancipacije nekih manjina ali ne i drugih. Asimetricnost slobode govora i reakcije na istu je tu najveci problema a ne sloboda govora kao takva.

 

 

Moj stav je tu da je sloboda govora dobrodosla kao prilicno apsolutna i manje arbitrarna u odnosu na politicku korektnost ogranicenja, a kroz debatu i jacinu argumenata se onda utice na javno mnjenje. Neka cveta hiljadu ruznih sulja i ruznih karikatura, ali za sve, bilo da su zene, Jevreji, gejevi ili muslimani.

Sa ovim se apsolutno slažem.

 

Ono što se ovde provlači kao odgovornost i svesnost posledica, koja treba da prati slobodu govora, reguliše se zakonima države, sudovima, pritiskom javnog mnjenja i sl.

 

Ne shvatam kako ljudi ne kapiraju da je reakcija preispitivanja šta sme, a šta ne sme da se piše/crta/priča iz neke navodne odgovornosti (a u stvari je reč o strahu i ničemu drugom) i nametanja autocenzure upravo reakcija kakvu su teroristi i želeli da postignu.

[boshoku]

Ne shvatam kako ljudi ne kapiraju da je reakcija preispitivanja šta sme, a šta ne sme da se piše/crta/priča iz neke navodne odgovornosti (a u stvari je reč o strahu i ničemu drugom) i nametanja autocenzure upravo reakcija kakvu su teroristi i želeli da postignu.

zato što ti je fi kognitivnog trakta, uzak - niko nije govorio/pisao da treba revidirati opredmećenje slobodarskog govora zanavek, već, a s obzirom na zapaljivost trenutka, zapaljivost koja može imati nesagledive posledice, stati na loptu s bilmezarijama tipa "treba svi da počnu sa slikovnim and/or verbalnim prozivom muhameda u inat/protesta radi"

[Ivo Petović]

Nope, prilično sam siguran da ovde ne pričamo o tome da li se u ovom trenutku treba inatiti ili ne, već o tome da uz slobodu govora ide i "odgovornost" i "svesnost" posledica iste, a to je načelno i dugoročno pitanje.

[boshoku]

ok, "posledice" jesu diskurzivni narativ 1 forumaša

 

ja ne da se ne slažem s takvim rezonovanjem (njegovim), već mislim da je takvo odvlačenje priče u ćorsokak strahovlade, strahovlade psihopata koji žele regulisati živote svih nas spram sopstvene dogme, po-gu-bno

 

ergo, saglasje s tebe

[Miralem]

lose i uvredljive karikature su jednostavno nuzno zlo. i neduhoviti glupaci imaju pravo da zvrljaju. a cak i oni mogu biti korisni- nakon 1000 muhameda sa kaktus dildom u bulji, muslimani ce prestati da se skandalizuju i postace manje osetljivi. tako je i piss christ imao neku funkciju.

 

nego, zanimljiva je jedna stvar- nakon 20 godina politicke korektnosti, tj. (uglavnom) verbalnog titranja jajaca manjinama, dosli smo u situaciju da su slobode ogranicenije a (auto)cenzura mnogo veca, dok su brojne (i to one opasnije) manjine izolovanije i vise radikalizovane. nesto, kao, ne valja u tom pristupu.

[Dagmar]

Pa nisam ja ovde tvrdio da ako vec u Rusiji progone pedere da je onda OK i da u Francuskoj vredjaju muslimane!

 

Ono, nije zabranjeno, nema zakona koji to brani, ali jebemmumater kome to treba i kakvo dobro ce iz toga da izadje?

 

 

Vredjanje religioznih zajednica je sigurno zabranjeno u Francuskoj. O cemu tacno pises?

[pacey defender]

Palo mi je na pamet da napravimo neki bazen u pogledu toga kakva zakonska ograničenja treba da postoje o odnosu na slobodu govora i izražavanja. Ako se slažete, možemo da izlistamo neka granična pitanja i da se testiramo. 

 

Padaju mi na pamet sledeća pitanja, odnosno iskazi sa kojima se slažemo ili ne slažemo. : 

 

1.    U Srbiji bi trebalo da bude kažnjivo štampanje i distribuiranje odevnih predmeta sa likom 1) Ratka Mladića 2) Dragoljuba Mihailovića, 3) Anta Pavelića, 4) Slobodana Miloševića, 5) Osame bin Ladena, 6) Andreasa Brejvika….. 

2.    U Srbiji bi trebalo sankcionisati sledeći iskaz: “Sve što znam, sav moj dar i filmsko umeće uložio sam u film ________________ da bih poručio mom narodu da postoji neko ko ga voli, respektuje i ceni; da postoji neko ko ga ne tretira kao čergu Cigana, kao bandu ubica i kao ludake sa Balkana bez budućnosti.” 

3.    Treba zabraniti upotrebu termina “šiptar” u medijima

4.    Sloboda izražavanja podrazumeva i slobodu da se putem štampanih medija distribuiraju karikature koje prikazuju patrijarha srpske pravoslavne crkve u seksualnom činu sa maloletnikom.

5.    Sloboda izražavanja i okupljanja podrazumeva, između ostalog, i slobodu neonacista da organizuju miran skup 21.aprila na u blizini Starog sajmišta (datum otkrivanja spomenika).