Frankie Boyle on free speech

[pap]

Frankie Boyle has bunged out a blog piece that I thought would be of interest to people here.

 

It's all about freedom of speech, something our Frankie has discovered the boundaries of with some regularity.

 

I find it incredibly worrying that we no longer need to hear the actual content of the thing we're told to be offended by. We hear of people being arrested for tweets without the tweet being reported; comics are blasted for routines that aren't printed; newspapers hire lip-readers to find something to get offended by at the tennis and then print the resulting ****fest as asterisks. And who decides whether we should be outraged at something we haven't seen or heard? The press. Our seething collective Id. None of us would trust a journalist to hold our pint while we went to the bathroom, yet we allow them to be ethical arbiters for the entire culture.

 

Boyle ends up concluding:-

 

We don't live in a shared reality, we each live in a reality of our own, and causing upset is often the price of trying to reach each other. It's always easier to dismiss other people than to go through the awkward and time consuming process of understanding them. We have given taking offence a social status it doesn't deserve: it's not much more than a way of avoiding difficult conversations.

 

I know that posters on this site endlessly talk about those that may be offended. Fair points?

 

http://www.frankieboyle.com/frankie/free-speech.html

[Whitey Grandad]

From what you've quoted I think I agree with him.

[Hatch]

I'll wait to decide what the forum thinks my view should be before commenting

[Whitey Grandad]

I'll wait to decide what the forum thinks my view should be before commenting

 

I think you should wait to see what your view should be.

[pap]

I thought Boyle's piece was an excellent journey through the mire surrounding the subject, pointing out all many hypocrisies and inconsistencies in the way we handle expression. Here's a good example:-

 

I tried to do a routine about why I thought we should be worried about Britain's "rape culture" on Live at The Apollo recently ( and I do feel we're reaching a crisis point where some people view rape as mere bad sexual etiquette, like patting your cock dry on a tea towel or paying in loose change) only to be told that while the sentiments of the routine were acceptable I just couldn't say the word rape.

[CB Saint]

Help, I am offended by the fact I agree with Frankie Boyle.

 

(he is still a C*** - offence intended)

[KelvinsRightGlove]

Frankie Boyle has bunged out a blog piece that I thought would be of interest to people here.

 

It's all about freedom of speech, something our Frankie has discovered the boundaries of with some regularity.

 

I know that posters on this site endlessly talk about those that may be offended. Fair points?

 

http://www.frankieboyle.com/frankie/free-speech.html

 

Well, he clearly has a stake in this. I've said before I've got no time for him, he's vile. I get it's the job of a comic to push boundaries, or be edgy or other such clichés. There's certainly space for this, and there are comics that do this I enjoy. I think though, if you are doing this you should have a point to it. Boyle never does this, he's offensive for the sake of being offensive, it's lazy.

 

I've said before I tire of free speech defences of things, which was met with some disdain. Truth is free speech never has been free, and always comes with caveats. The point of free speech is also often totally overlooked. Especially online.

 

Free Speech comes from the democratic right to question, and hold governments to account. Not people who use it to say vile things, and turn round and say FREEZE PEACH!!! And moan that others are offended, it's nonsense. Just don't be an asshole, why go out of your way to p!ss people off? I'd argue quite the opposite to Boyles conclusion, we've put too much status in being a tosser, and deliberately hurting people.

[PhilippineSaint]

He has a fair point of view, the PC brigade have a lot to answer for as I have said on here before but been berated for my opinion.

[pap]

Well, he clearly has a stake in this. I've said before I've got no time for him, he's vile. I get it's the job of a comic to push boundaries, or be edgy or other such clichés. There's certainly space for this, and there are comics that do this I enjoy. I think though, if you are doing this you should have a point to it. Boyle never does this, he's offensive for the sake of being offensive, it's lazy.

 

I've said before I tire of free speech defences of things, which was met with some disdain. Truth is free speech never has been free, and always comes with caveats. The point of free speech is also often totally overlooked. Especially online.

 

Free Speech comes from the democratic right to question, and hold governments to account. Not people who use it to say vile things, and turn round and say FREEZE PEACH!!! And moan that others are offended, it's nonsense. Just don't be an asshole, why go out of your way to p!ss people off? I'd argue quite the opposite to Boyles conclusion, we've put too much status in being a tosser, and deliberately hurting people.

 

I like Boyle personally. He doesn't have too many contemporaries, as his weekly demolition of all the other comics on Mock The Week used to show. I'd disagree with your stance on him being offensive just for its own sake, and would submit the entire blog piece in evidence. Is this a bloke looking to offend at every turn? Doesn't look like it from the piece in question, even if he does have a dog in the fight.

 

I have some sympathy with your other views on free speech though. It doesn't really exist in a meaningful form, even the one you'd prefer. I also think that continually depicting religious icons to píss religious groups off is a poor example of free speech, which has probably got more in common with the grandstanding that used to happen before ancient battles, than any serious political modern dialogue. Deliberately going out to cause offence by pushing buttons isn't a correct application of free speech. It's closer to incitement, only in many cases officially backed.

 

The use of free speech as a democratic right to question doesn't really work either, particularly in this country. Libel laws and super-injunctions all factor in, but the key strategy has always been the same. Say what you like, but prepared to be destroyed for what you've said.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

I like Boyle personally. He doesn't have too many contemporaries, as his weekly demolition of all the other comics on Mock The Week used to show. I'd disagree with your stance on him being offensive just for its own sake, and would submit the entire blog piece in evidence. Is this a bloke looking to offend at every turn? Doesn't look like it from the piece in question, even if he does have a dog in the fight.

 

I have some sympathy with your other views on free speech though. It doesn't really exist in a meaningful form, even the one you'd prefer. I also think that continually depicting religious icons to píss religious groups off is a poor example of free speech, which has probably got more in common with the grandstanding that used to happen before ancient battles, than any serious political modern dialogue. Deliberately going out to cause offence by pushing buttons isn't a correct application of free speech. It's closer to incitement, only in many cases officially backed.

 

The use of free speech as a democratic right to question doesn't really work either, particularly in this country. Libel laws and super-injunctions all factor in, but the key strategy has always been the same. Say what you like, but prepared to be destroyed for what you've said.

 

Fair enough points, specially this blog. I don't like him, and still think he's vile. Some of the 'jokes' he's made about disabled people and his subsequent reactions have been in pretty poor taste. As I say I don't like him.

 

On the other points, I agree. I'm not saying the implication or application of what I said is perfect (far effing from it), and you have pointed out some of the reason why.

 

I guess, I may be slightly battered from having spent too much time staring into a **** storm of awfullness the past few months and seeing free speech used as a justification for this.

 

I particularly agree with your last point, the seems to be much confusion of this. Free speech does not, and should not, equate to freedom from consequence.