Free Speech or Too Far?

[MomentsofSanity]

Pictures from a recent photo shoot done by comedian Kathy Griffin show her holding a severed, bloody head that is supposed to be that of Trump.

Curious on thoughts of the good people of AT. Personally, this strikes me as a too far. If this were Obama I'm sure it would be called inappropriate by many.

Pics at link.

http://www.tmz.com/2017/05/30/kathy-griffin-beheads-donald-trump-photo-tyler-shields/

 

[interchange]

It is inappropriate, and it is also free speech. This a too common false dichotomy. If we support someone's right to something, that does not mean that we must support the thing itself. For example, I am pro-gun rights but anti-gun ownership. Pro-choice does not (necessarily) mean pro-abortion. Etc.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Yeah I meant to add a third choice. it's there now.

 

[Commodus]

Both. I support Griffin's right to do that, but if she weren't a comedian, she'd probably be getting a knock on the door from the Secret Service. Hell, knowing Trump's I'd-ban-critical-speech-if-I-could mindset, I wouldn't be surprised if the Service shows up regardless.

 

[fskimospy]

Yeah it's both. Considering how many presidents have been killed or have faced attempted murder joking about killing them is bad taste.

That being said, she should absolutely be able to make that shitty joke. The most important free speech to defend is unpopular speech, as popular speech doesn't usually need defending.

 

[pauldun170]

Free Speech....
I think every President should face having some sort effigy violated during the act of expressing dissent.
The governments reaction to that act should be our way of proving to the rest of the world that we are society worth learning from.

 

[xthetenth]

Honestly I don't see an overarching message that makes it worth the implied violence, but frankly, it's tame enough (by a standard where it's not an explicit call to or implied threat of violence) and intended as humorous to be on the line.

 

[zinfamous]

It's both, and this kind of thing is as old as the idea of the USA.

 

[cytg111]

There is this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

I can debate it with myself all day all week and still not come up with a definitive opinion on the matter...

I guess it is sort of a feedback system have a tolerant system that breeds enough intolerance and the system adjusts itself towards lesser tolerance with ie. banning hate speakers, time will pass and system move towards more tolerant again.
So whether its appropiate for her to stage with a severed head of Trump depends on where we are in that cycle and if I would have to take the last 12 months into account i'd say its problary over the line. Thats just my call.

 

[sandorski]

If it was live on the street performance Art, I'd think it's potentially way over the line depending how it was done. A photoshoot though, meh.

 

[TheVrolok]

Agree with the others. Protected free speech even though I, personally, dislike it.

 

[MajinCry]

If it was the head of someone that had a shred of moral fiber in them, I'd be a bit off-put.

 

[umbrella39]

In shit taste and probably offensive to some but she committed no crime...

 

[Blue_Max]

This defense of free speech warms my heart. I hope you'd feel the same if it were Obama, Bernie or Hillary's head (or other hero of the left.)

It seems odd, though, that the same people defending this beheading-art are the same ones happy to shut down speeches of anyone they dislike....
[incongruity error]

 

[MomentsofSanity]

This defense of free speech warms my heart. I hope you'd feel the same if it were Obama, Bernie or Hillary's head (or other hero of the left.)

It seems odd, though, that the same people defending this beheading-art are the same ones happy to shut down speeches of anyone they dislike....
[incongruity error]

Where has anyone said people like Coulter shouldn't be allowed to speak? They can speak. Their opponents can speak out against them too. If the hosts choose to cancel the even that is their choice. That seems to be the consistent sentiment I see on this site.

 

[cytg111]

This defense of free speech warms my heart. I hope you'd feel the same if it were Obama, Bernie or Hillary's head (or other hero of the left.)

It seems odd, though, that the same people defending this beheading-art are the same ones happy to shut down speeches of anyone they dislike....
[incongruity error]

Here we go picking fights again instead of staying on topic. And you know a cluster of s* storms are incoming, so why... its just noise.. or maybe that is the point? noise?

 

[Blue_Max]

Where has anyone said people like Coulter shouldn't be allowed to speak? They can speak. Their opponents can speak out against them too. If the hosts choose to cancel the even that is their choice. That seems to be the consistent sentiment I see on this site.

Speaking out is one thing. RIOTING IN THE STREETS (often for school credit or cash) is quite another. A rather dishonest comparison, don'cha think?

 

[Blue_Max]

Here we go picking fights again instead of staying on topic.

The hypocrisy is worthy of pointing out. FOR Trumps' head "art". AGAINST speaking events for the unclean.

 

[Blue_Max]

And break out the lube; here's the video version of your little show. (And no, I don't want it censored - leave it up for the world to see what the left has become.)
Obviously NSFW
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=vR2MFOEDQcI

 

[cytg111]

The hypocrisy is worthy of pointing out. FOR Trumps' head "art". AGAINST speaking events for the unclean.

Here some ppl driving a hillary doll into a bon fire

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKHAcOwTFe0

Lets see how many calls this out then

 

[agent00f]

It is inappropriate, and it is also free speech. This a too common false dichotomy. If we support someone's right to something, that does not mean that we must support the thing itself. For example, I am pro-gun rights but anti-gun ownership. Pro-choice does not (necessarily) mean pro-abortion. Etc.

Pictures from a recent photo shoot done by comedian Kathy Griffin show her holding a severed, bloody head that is supposed to be that of Trump.

Curious on thoughts of the good people of AT. Personally, this strikes me as a too far. If this were Obama I'm sure it would be called inappropriate by many.

Pics at link.

http://www.tmz.com/2017/05/30/kathy-griffin-beheads-donald-trump-photo-tyler-shields/

This defense of free speech warms my heart. I hope you'd feel the same if it were Obama, Bernie or Hillary's head (or other hero of the left.)

It seems odd, though, that the same people defending this beheading-art are the same ones happy to shut down speeches of anyone they dislike....
[incongruity error]

Seem pretty obvious there's a difference between putting some facist racist pandering shit's head on a spike vs., say, MLK's.

 

[Geekbabe]

I found this to be in very poor taste & not funny but...free speech. Btw, free speech should also rule in Portland who is asking that an alt right rally be stopped.

 

[Blue_Max]

I found this to be in very poor taste & not funny but...free speech. Btw, free speech should also rule in Portland who is asking that an alt right rally be stopped.

Would that be the FREE SPEECH rally? Not an "alt-right" event, but classified as such because the progressives consider anyone not of their ranks to be such?

So.... whose "free speech" wins? The people wanting to have an event, or the ones who want it blocked?

 

[shortylickens]

Too far.
That could easily be considered a threat against the president which is a serious fucking crime.
I dont like the guy at all but wishing his death is not appropriate.

 

[xthetenth]

This defense of free speech warms my heart. I hope you'd feel the same if it were Obama, Bernie or Hillary's head (or other hero of the left.)

It seems odd, though, that the same people defending this beheading-art are the same ones happy to shut down speeches of anyone they dislike....
[incongruity error]

The question is whether it's free speech or not (It's at the edge but probably still admissable), which puts it into a very different territory from whether it's tasteful or a good idea (Not by a long shot). It's still not to the point of things like all the signs from Obama's terms combining nooses and hanging references, particularly not in the context of extrajudicial hanging of specifically black men. Those are absolutely no-go because they are explicitly advocating violence. This is "merely" in the realm of something that is technically legal but that's the best thing you can say about it, which is an exceedingly low bar.

What this is not, however, is a speaker invited to a private institution that is theoretically acting in the interests of its members, which does have the right to listen to its members and retract an invitation.