Free Speech

I was interested to see this post by Dizzy, relating to an e-mail sent by a Republican in the States which asked a very simple question.

Dizzy's post links to an article in another website which reveals that the e-mail was sent to 8 people. This website also reveals, in the apology issued, the point is made that "There really was no reason for this to go beyond those that I e-mailed (8 people)."

Thoughts that immediately arise are (a) the original e-mail was sent, presumably, to 8 people who the writer thought were either friends or who were considered to have the same sense of humour, (b) why did one of the 8 feel the need to publicise the content when, surely, the obvious course of action was to take this up privately with the sender, (c) is it not a reasonable question that was asked, namely if 2,000,000 individuals can collectively do something, why could not 200,000 and (d) would this 'outrage' have been publicised had the word 'whites' been used instead of 'blacks', or even, if the word 'individuals' had been used?

As an aside, I have received, via e-mail, jokes which I have not found funny and in one or two cases have considered 'sick'. They have been deleted and forgotten without any feelings of 'outrage', 'offense' and certainly without publicising the contents and causing problems for the senders.

Contrast this 'e-mail event' with the widely reported statement by Jeremy Clarkson and the description he used in respect of Gordon Brown. Whilst it is appreciated that this statement was made at a press conference and therefore addressed to 'all and sundry', the principle of free speech remains the same. Clarkson is renowned for 'speaking his mind' and for not 'minding his words', but should he be forced to moderate his language or views?

It would be interesting to know how many countries have words or phrases in their language which are used to describe members of other races and which may be considered derogatory.

It is said 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder' and I would offer the suggestion that, likewise, interpretation is in the eye/ear of the viewer/listener. I cannot, for example, see any difference in an accusation of 'lying' or the accusation that someone has been 'economical with the actualite'.

To summarise, I believe that once someone, or a group, begin imposing their ideas of acceptable use of language on the majority, the freedom of speech is severely restricted. For example, if an individual chooses to punctuate their speech with repetitive swear words, that is their choice; those who dislike such speech will either not listen or not associate with such individuals - again, their choice.

To those who may feel 'offended' by this post, I make no apology. The contents are my thoughts, mine and mine alone and are something over which only I have control. They do not affect any other person in that they have no intrusion on any aspect of another person's way of life.

Consequently there are only two courses open to those who read them; accept or reject them. Please do not complain to me that you find them 'offensive' because, to paraphrase Clark Gable, I don't give a damn.

Update: I notice, via Dick Puddlecote, that Clarkson has 'apologised' for his remark regarding Gordon Brown being a 'one-eyed Scottish idiot'. More fool Jeremy Clarkson - so I will say it.

Gordon Brown is a one-eyed Scottish idiot.