A freedom to express

entry picture

or

'tis context 

 

 

In The Friends of Voltaire, Evelyn Hall wrote the phrase: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

 

Say whatever you want - but

prepare to be the subject

of reprisal.

 

There is NO such thing

as complete freedom,

not in life; art nor in postings.

So- as we are all subject

to discretion or compromise

it is best understood

that 'your words' may be posted-

then someone may remove them-

freedom and oppression

go hand in hand in this case.

 

It would be madness

to assert that one is

allowed to

'express whatever

one wants'

and not be

subject to censure.

 

So ** has expressed his

'right' to post a poem

(I have not read it)

and someone has

expressed

thier 'right' to remove it-

as have others in

condemming

or supporting it.

 

A matter of taste

is another thing,

and those that censure

have the ability to

express thier 'right'

to be offended.

 

I would not support

anyones 'right' to be

obnoxious and

remain 'free'

from reprisals,

such as censure.

 

Does a poem have 'merit'

that out-weighs 'offence'?

the reader must judge

for themselves and

the writer may suffer

the consequences

of a poorly judged cynical

attempt to shock...so be it.

I myself would oppose

the freedom to offend

on the grounds of race

or gender

or disability

to name but three.

 

Words and foto  Tommy Carroll

Rough second draft.

 

◄ The end of interest

Wittgenstein says he: ►

Comments

Profile image

Tommy Carroll

Tue 25th Jun 2019 10:29

The ability is not the right; without neither the voice nor the ability to write, the righteous are diminished. I think we are broadly in agreement. Tommy

Profile image

M.C. Newberry

Mon 24th Jun 2019 15:49

In reality there are limits to everything in life - even life itself - but even those limits are surely worthy of criticism or comment as long
as they are not made for purely vicious and vacuous purposes.
For example - if a dangerous rise in crime is noted in a particular
section of society, then it would be sacrificing the safety of society
per se by not commenting on that reality in the desire for a remedy.
Cruel to be kind can take various forms but the medicine must be
strong enough to "limit" the malaise when necessary.

Profile image

Don Matthews

Sun 23rd Jun 2019 10:30

I agree with kj.No-one has the right to incite hatred. And with Tommy, no-one has the right to offend on the grounds of race, gender and disability. To me, society has certain rules and if you want to be part of that society you need to agree to and follow them. You can stretch to a certain point but there is a limit.

Profile image

kJ Walker

Sun 23rd Jun 2019 08:07

I hate the idea of censorship, but fully understand the need for it.
If someone expresses an opinion which I totally disagree with, then I'll ignore it, or if I'm feeling brave I'll pull them up on it.
However, I don't believe that anyone has the right to incite hatred through their postings, and would agree with the censors if they take these posts down.

If you wish to post a comment you must login.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

Find out more Hide this message