Surely I can base my judgement on opinions voiced in the public forum on what is said and written in the public forum.
That people may think differently to how they act or talk goes without saying, regardless of country.
But to be honest, I much prefer it to be unacceptable to voice homophobic or racist 'jokes', especially in a radio/tv/newspaper, regardless of what the journalist might really think.
Daniela
I agree. I think what people feel comfortable to say in public does reflect what they think/believe. Changing what is acceptable to voice is the first step to changing our culture.
I also think that the culture in the UK regarding homophobia and racism has changed very quickly. My own wee village in the UK used to be pretty small minded. Last time I was back things had changed a lot with several prominent gay couples. And some humour which made me wince. I think NZ will change even faster. Particularly Auckland which is as close to a melting pot as NZ will get.
You can base your opinion on what is said in public only if everybody is free to say what they think even if it is nasty. That is what I meant. If you have censorship by law or by culture, certain things will not be discussed and the way of thinking in some minds will never be changed.
I personally was shocked when I lived in the US because of the nasty things that were said. However, I now can see the value of truly free speech.
Last edited by Alia; 9th March 2011 at 10:39 PM.
Hi Indianaman, I'm from Iowa and been living in Paraparaumu for nearly two years. I'm heterosexual so might not be as perceptive on these matters as others. That being said, I would venture to say at least in the Wellington area people are much more receptive to homosexuality than folks back home. In general I find Kiwis to be pretty care free about these kinds of things. In comparison to the mid-west especially. I think you would find the comparison even more striking in the rural areas here compared to those in rural Indiana or Iowa. Not saying those here might not take notice of a gay couple holding hands. But in small town Iowa doing something like that has a good likelihood to land you in the hospital. I don't get the feeling it's like that here.
But however freely things are discussed, some people will NEVER change what they think. There is no way to check on unexpressed thoughts, or impose different ones. I think there needs to be some repression of talk (and action if it comes to that) in case such people's beliefs are likely to lead to unpleasantness for certain sections of the community.
Not to labour a point here but what I meant was this: I hear a radio DJ say ‘[insert gay slur]’, I judge this to be nasty and inappropriate. So I am basing a judgement purely on what I hear, there is no extension of this to anyone else other than the publicly voiced opinion. But I shall leave it at that.
I don’t think this is the place to discuss the relative merits of ‘total’ free speech as opposed to free speech with contstraints on inciting hatred and violence.
However. As in the case of the radio DJ above, I have no interest in his/her personal thoughts about homosexuality. I do not hope to convince him/her of anything. What I do care about is what s/he says on the radio. And in that context, I don’t want to hear derogative remarks.
I think I have given up on the idea of making people see the light (my light, of course). What I want is for the speech in public and where heard (in school, in the media, at work) to be not hateful, derogatory, stereotyping or full of ridiculous prejudices (I’d love to add ‘stupid’, but I guess that would be too much) to the point where it can cause harm. If it takes the law in some cases to do that, so be it (in the form of broadcasting standards, anti discrimination regulation, etc)
Daniela
Yes, but then you have other people (me, for example) who believes that tolerence is a two-way street. Just because I don't like what someone says due to it being prejudiced I think that, in a tolerant society, it should be tolerated as that person has just as much right to raise their prejudices as someone else has to point out that they believe them to be wrong.
I personally want all speech to be free (including the right to shout fire in a public theatre). There is, however, a responsibility to go along with the right to free speech and that is that you must be responsible for your actions (i.e. incitement; injuries in said theatre).
So preachers of hate should be allowed to preach their hatred (be it anti-capitalism, Islam, "The West", homosexuals etc) but they must accept responsibility for the actions of someone who listens to their hatred and acts upon it.
That's why I said 'to the point of causing harm' (or something). I am not opposed to debate, obviously, and talking about different viewpoints. But saying things on the radio/tv/newspaper, for example, brings with it a responsibility to not just shout 'that stupid f*g*&t'.
If you say you will hold someone responsible for shouting 'fire' in a cinema, how do you see that working any differently than current regulation does? Same for inciting racial violence/hatred, what practical difference does your suggestion (of taking responsibility) make to the current laws? (not rhetorical questions)
Daniela
edit - ralf
Last edited by ralf-nz; 10th March 2011 at 01:25 PM.