Found at Boing Boing.

'His Dark Materials' trilogy are easily one of my favourite book series. And now I'm going to go and find this one

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, March 30th, 2010 4:15am PDT - promote requested by alien_concept.

well said!

Whenever people bring up hate speech laws etc, just show them this video.

Allow me to summarize:

To the over-sensitive asshat, fuck you.

Exactly, this bizarre notion that you can't write something that would shock an 'ordinary christian' is just that... bizarre. Oh, so sorry sir that your feeble little mind can't handle YOUR christ being called a scoundrel ('Scoundrel? Scoundrel... I like the sound of that'), then perhaps you might want to read a few more books than the bible and those that laud it.

Great response.

Hrmmm, I believe that whoever asked that question should take lessons on basic pronunciation. that was horrible, I literally dont know wtf that guy said; it was just all mumbles to me. Fantastic answer IMHO

In BC right now there's a Human Rights Tribunal hearing into an incident at a restaurant, which was holding a comedy night several years ago. A lesbian couple walked in and the comedian gave them a hard time for coming late and made a comment about Dykes. Here's a link to the story.
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Lawyer+representing+comedian+walks+human+rights+hearing/2740470/story.html

Seriously, as someone who really fundamentally believes in the freedom of ideas and speech, I'm really shocked that this even has a hearing. We in Canada have no Constitutionally protected freedom of speech- like those in the US do. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms can be read here... http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/.

Pullman is absolutely right- nobody should have the right to go through life un-offended.

While I agree with the sentiment, to be fair to the "over-sensitive asshat", he didn't say the book should be banned. In fact he pretty much foreshadowed Pullmans advice and communicated his dislike of the title to him. I fail to see how that's a problem.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

While I agree with the sentiment, to be fair to the "over-sensitive asshat", he didn't say the book should be banned. In fact he pretty much foreshadowed Pullmans advice and communicated his dislike of the title to him. I fail to see how that's a problem.

Basically, the guy gave his (subjective and retarded) opinion about the title of the book. The author rightfully responded with his own (objective and rational) opinion. I fail to see how you fail to see the problem.

There is no problem. The guy in the audience was doing -precisely- what the author said in his rant that people could do...complain about the book. Frankly, based on this video, I'd have to consider the author to be little more than a troll, making statements designed for no other purpose than to offend. I'd much rather listen to Dawkins, whose offensiveness is almost always completely coincidental.
>> ^Bidouleroux:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
While I agree with the sentiment, to be fair to the "over-sensitive asshat", he didn't say the book should be banned. In fact he pretty much foreshadowed Pullmans advice and communicated his dislike of the title to him. I fail to see how that's a problem.

Basically, the guy gave his (subjective and retarded) opinion about the title of the book. The author rightfully responded with his own (objective and rational) opinion. I fail to see how you fail to see the problem.

Deserves to be put at the end of every video on the net that has an illogical religious question.

This is one of the best concise statements of the right of free speech that I've ever heard.

>> ^Bidouleroux:

Basically, the guy gave his (subjective and retarded) opinion about the title of the book. The author rightfully responded with his own (objective and rational) opinion. I fail to see how you fail to see the problem.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

While I agree with the sentiment, to be fair to the "over-sensitive asshat", he didn't say the book should be banned. In fact he pretty much foreshadowed Pullmans advice and communicated his dislike of the title to him. I fail to see how that's a problem.




You are missing the point. The merits of their respective opinions are irrelevant. Or do you want to censor opinions you don't agree with?

>> ^therealblankman:
In BC right now there's a Human Rights Tribunal hearing into an incident at a restaurant, which was holding a comedy night several years ago. A lesbian couple walked in and the comedian gave them a hard time for coming late and made a comment about Dykes. Here's a link to the story.
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Lawyer+representing+comedian+walks+human+rights+hearing/2740470/story.html
Seriously, as someone who really fundamentally believes in the freedom of ideas and speech, I'm really shocked that this even has a hearing. We in Canada have no Constitutionally protected freedom of speech- like those in the US do. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms can be read here... http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/.
Pullman is absolutely right- nobody should have the right to go through life un-offended.


Actually, Supreme Court already ruled it was free speech. The tribunal is just ignoring that. Both sides seem to be lying up a storm though.

Just an FYI though, Americans have less Freedom of Speech than Canadians. They have corporate law stomping their mouths closed too.

Maybe no one has the right to go through life un-offended but we DO have the legal right not to be threatened. The whole point of the hate speech laws is that certain words (which I will not write here) and actions aren't just offensive, they by connotation due to their historical use contain either implied threats of violence or seek to incite others to react violently to a group of individuals purely on the basis of their religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, etc.

I will offer the example of hanging a noose in a public place in order to show one's dislike of black people. Obviously there is no law against hanging a noose in a public place, and people are quite free to express their dislike (however irrational) of those of a different skin color. However, also quite obviously, that noose conveys a clear message of violence towards individuals of African-American descent, at least in the United States, for historical reasons. I therefore have no trouble at all with the individual(s) responsible being arrested and charged with a crime for making such a threat and I find it hard to believe that you do.

>> ^Crake:

well said!
Whenever people bring up hate speech laws etc, just show them this video.

^ @SDGundamX, I fail to see how hanging up a lynching noose falls under "violence" and not "offensive behaviour".

Are you talking about Fighting Words? That seems to be as good a definition of hate speech as any, and is based on the following belief:

"It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."

(Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942)

However, to me that seems like a stupid attitude - is it then up to the judge's fancy whether, for instance, Philip Pullman's books constitute a "social value as a step to truth" or not?

If i "encourage" you to murder someone by saying you should, and you then do it, which of us is the guilty party? Are you less guilty because you were under my spell?

[edit] Oops, i confess i hadn't read the post-chaplinsky chapter in the wiki article. NOT so great a definition of hate speech then, but it does show how that sort of legislation is irrational

We're not talking about simply swearing at another person here. If I threaten to kill somebody, regardless of whether I kill them or not, it is a crime according to US law (see "assault" ). Hanging the noose is an threat of violence, as is painting a swastika on a synagogue or a host of other behaviors and language. There's nothing irrational about locking up people who threaten other people with violence.

^well I was thinking more along the lines of hate speech laws, which apparently don't exist in the US. They're generally pretty badly thought through, and can easily be abused. Especially since the groups being offended might have a counterproductive worldview (i.e. religious groups), and humoring them would cripple a functioning democracy.
For instance, the Durban II talks were hijacked by religious groups trying to make it a human right not to have your religion criticized.
Not only would that make a rational dialogue impossible, it also smacks of group rights.