Dear Reader,
It has been a while, since we handed out an Idiot of the Day medal.
No, there is no shortage on potential recipients, we were just busy, I guess.
But there is a judge in the UK, who truly deserves one. And it cannot be postponed.
She declared a man guilty for using the word "cunt" on twitter and has sent him for sentencing. You can read the full story here or here.
I am no big fan of swear words. From time to time they are useful to emphasize something or to just let off steam. But the main point here, of course, this judge thinks she can rule and limit free speech. And this a line in the sand. Freedom of speech isn't challenged by stuff we like. It shows it's importance, if and when we don't like, what we hear or read.
Since the Judge obviously needs a lesson in history, besides our medal, here is a great piece by the late George Carlin, about what you could and could not say on TV:
Please note, this is from 1978. One would have thought, we settled the issue then.
Now, can you Brits please take have the Judge removed from the bench for having no fucking (!) clue, maybe? Thanks.
Stay free and tolerant,
Engine Room
7 comments:
Dear ER, this is neither history, IOD or any other convenient description.
Frankly the guy deserves whatever is coming to him for no other reason that, if he is guilty of the alleged incident, he deserves nothing else.
I am sick of the moron who sits behind me at football using this and other expletives at high volume. I am as guilty as the next man for swearing, often unecessarily. The use of this language shows lack of finesse, lack of culture and general loutishness endemic in the UK at the moment. To excuse it as 'illustrative' or 'colourful' renders those who use this excuse as lacking in social skills and command of language as the utterer.
I rescind the IOD label and fully agree with the judge.
Dear Glynsky,
The point in case is NOT whether swear words are nice, intelligent, necessary, or whatever. Whether or not you FEEL (!) offended, quite frankly, is your problem.
Contrary to what some believe, the law does not protect your feelings!
What it does protect, is your opinion and your right to voice that opinion.
That is what matters.
"I might not like, what you say.
But I am willing to fight for your right to say it."
ER
Anarchic balderdash.
a) I have expressed my opinion.
b) I/we have done so with no personal attack.
c) It may have escaped you, as the engine room is dim, that I contend that the use of this language in public is offensive irrespective of feelings.
It is gross and most of the time totally gratuitous.
The containment of behaviour by the law is the difference between culture and civilisation vs barbarism, anarchy, bullying and those who probably wouldn't recognise 'quality in life' beyond their 'right' to behave as louts.
Oh, please, Glynsky,
Your use of "balderdash" makes my point. Is that how you show intelligence, finesse, culture?
You might want to check the history of laws against defamation.
Monarchs "invented" them, to silence critics and opposition.
And what is it used for in this case?
ER
And as a side note, Glynsky,
You might want to review the video of that Nigel Farage, you posted earlier and seem to favor so much.
How did he start his speech? With two not unfunny insults like: "You have the appearance of a **** rag."
Later he refers to Belgium as "pretty much a non-country", thus pretty much insulting 10+ million people, he certainly doesn't know.
Is that the intelligent, polite behavior you seem to demand now?
Can all the 10 million then sue him? Should he be thrown into jail, if we find a judge stupid enough?
I rest my case.
ER
Rightly or wrongly I feel there is a big difference between writing the word referred to and yelling it out at a football match for all to hear.
As a matter of interest if you were to read 'Who is Pete?' on the Diablog front page, I wrote back then that Glynsky is a Count.
I stand by this remark.
You always were bad at spelling, Pete.
Post a Comment