Eh. I love XKCD, I think Munroe is a genius. And I think this strip is factually correct, although, not being an American myself, having no "1st amendment" in the laws that govern me, I will not presume to know this for sure. However, in my experience and opinion, this particular strip has been widely used by people who have an agenda, have encountered opposition to it, and seek to dismiss or mock those who oppose them with an easy and comfortable sound bite. And that doesn't sit well with me.
See, what I do have (along with specific country laws that I won't bore you with), is a right to freedom of thought and freedom of expression as recognised in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which my country, and very likely yours too, adopted in 1948 and ratified sometime in the 70s.
Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
This is actually international law, but never mind that, what matters is that the world seems to agree that these are rights every human being is entitled to, that it is morally wrong if someone is denied them. This doesn't mean there ought to be absolutely no limitations, certainly, life is not black and white and there are many reasons why freedom of expression should and will be limited, but the point is: this is important shit. In fact, I believe freedom of expression has been and will always be vital to Western civilisation, it may just be the reason why it's the most successful form of society and arguably the best culture to live in. I believe it is that important -- and if you don't, please go read John Stuart Mill, really. It truly worries me, it dismays me, to see how many people, Westerners of all people, just don't seem to share this conviction.
So I think that, even in cases where no specific country law mandates that people must be allowed free expression, we ought to strive for it anyway, because it's the right thing to do. With "we" here being individuals, governments, groups, companies, media, websites, whatever. And that, when one such entity chooses to limit this right for reasons not quite of the same weight, like not inconveniencing or annoying some people (within reason), in general we ought to disapprove, and if possible push for a change. Because it is wrong. Not as a matter of law, but as a matter of morals.
And so I believe it is highly questionable to use this strip to illustrate why it's OK to deny freedom of expression to, say, creationists or atheists, liberals or conservatives, feminists, MRAs, gamergaters, gun advocates, or whatever other group that happens to annoy you because they're "being assholes," yet they're breaking no laws or violating human rights. At this point, seriously, I'm so predisposed against it that makes me want to side with your opposition rather than with you, just on general principle.
I couldn't agree more, this comic is now being used as a tool to silence by groups who don't know the difference between "technically correct" and right.
Eh. I love XKCD, I think Munroe is a genius. And I think this strip is factually correct, although, not being an American myself, having no "1st amendment" in the laws that govern me, I will not presume to know this for sure. However, in my experience and opinion, this particular strip has been widely used by people who have an agenda, have encountered opposition to it, and seek to dismiss or mock those who oppose them with an easy and comfortable sound bite. And that doesn't sit well with me.
See, what I do have (along with specific country laws that I won't bore you with), is a right to freedom of thought and freedom of expression as recognised in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which my country, and very likely yours too, adopted in 1948 and ratified sometime in the 70s.
This is actually international law, but never mind that, what matters is that the world seems to agree that these are rights every human being is entitled to, that it is morally wrong if someone is denied them. This doesn't mean there ought to be absolutely no limitations, certainly, life is not black and white and there are many reasons why freedom of expression should and will be limited, but the point is: this is important shit. In fact, I believe freedom of expression has been and will always be vital to Western civilisation, it may just be the reason why it's the most successful form of society and arguably the best culture to live in. I believe it is that important -- and if you don't, please go read John Stuart Mill, really. It truly worries me, it dismays me, to see how many people, Westerners of all people, just don't seem to share this conviction.
So I think that, even in cases where no specific country law mandates that people must be allowed free expression, we ought to strive for it anyway, because it's the right thing to do. With "we" here being individuals, governments, groups, companies, media, websites, whatever. And that, when one such entity chooses to limit this right for reasons not quite of the same weight, like not inconveniencing or annoying some people (within reason), in general we ought to disapprove, and if possible push for a change. Because it is wrong. Not as a matter of law, but as a matter of morals.
And so I believe it is highly questionable to use this strip to illustrate why it's OK to deny freedom of expression to, say, creationists or atheists, liberals or conservatives, feminists, MRAs, gamergaters, gun advocates, or whatever other group that happens to annoy you because they're "being assholes," yet they're breaking no laws or violating human rights. At this point, seriously, I'm so predisposed against it that makes me want to side with your opposition rather than with you, just on general principle.
I couldn't agree more, this comic is now being used as a tool to silence by groups who don't know the difference between "technically correct" and right.