رد: Re: [Reader-list] The Slimes of India's Patna edition reprints, Danish cartoon

[Koen Martens]

Lena Jayyusi wrote:
> The problem with this, of course, is that it treats 'speech' merely 
> as 'words' that 'express' opinions. The performative dimension of
> speech (which the ordinary language philosphers did so much to elucidate) 
> is entirely missed. And if so, then we have a problem understanding 'courses 
> of action' in the  world, where speech acts (talk and consequence; 
> utterance and performance) produce constellations of events with
> real consequences for others over time .

But is it the words that produce the events or is it the beholder of
the words
that produce the events?

> What do we say of speech that creates an atmosphere for war 
> against others, for example? 

I tend to say that it is not the speech that creates an atmosphere for
war against others. To come back to the cartoon hype, it is only certain
groups that react with violence. Muslims in Europe for example, do
not go
on the streets burning newspaper offices (apart from the occasional
nut making
a false bomb threat, in Europe the 'fight' is with words, as it
ought to be).

It is the beholder, the listener, the interpreter, that creates the
atmosphere for
war. In the case of the cartoon riots, i strongly believe the few
hundred muslims that
chose violence are manipulated somehow, either that or their
intellect is very poor, unable
to cope with things that don't fit in their narrow view of the
world. That is known to
provoke violence, not only in religious spheres.

> If I may so say, Koens original posting strikes me as contradictory in this
> respect (as in several other respects also): did it not object to 'muslim 
> extremists' expressing their opinion on the list?  

I merely expressed that i would not like to be on the same list.
These muslim
extremists may say what they wish to, but i don't want to have to
listen to it. I
never objected to them being on the list, i objected to me having to
listen to
them. If i don't want to, i can simply unsubscribe or put them on
the ignore
list or whatever.

And that is a choice everyone can make regarding speech. To ignore
it or to listen to it.

But i refuse to accept that i cannot say certain things because when
i say them i have to
fear for my life. Because if that is the case, we end up with a kind
of society where those
who are most aggressive and strongest will decree what is and is not
acceptable.

Best,

Koen

> 
> 
> Lena Jayyusi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>>>Koen Martens <gmc at sonologic.nl> 02/10/06 11:40 ص >>>
> 
> Yazad Jal wrote:
> 
>>Koen makes interesting points which need to be examined carefully. I
>>applaud your forthrightness!
>>
>>Just a thought: how "free" is free speech if we're to be careful of
>>people's "sentiments"?
> 
> 
> I've been pondering on this a while now. A lot of people i talk with
> about this seem to have the opinion that free speech ends where you
> hurt someone or don't respect someone. If this is the argument,
> there is no speech at all, because i think about anything one can
> say will hurt someone.
> 
> Others suggest setting forth some guidelines about what can and
> can't be said. This reeks of censorship to me, even if it isn't the
> government setting up the guidelines/list.
> 
> Also, making some things unspeakable is not healthy I think. For the
> individual, suppressing certain things will lead to psychological
> problems (eg. if one is quiting with smoking, supressing the thought
> of smoking will only make it more difficult). I strongly believe
> this scales to society too, if a society wishes to supress certain
> 'memes', the result will be unhealty.
> 
> Koen
> 


-- 
K.F.J. Martens, Sonologic, http://www.sonologic.nl/
Networking, hosting, embedded systems, unix, artificial intelligence.
Public PGP key: http://www.metro.cx/pubkey-gmc.asc
Wondering about the funny attachment your mail program
can't read? Visit http://www.openpgp.org/