Freedom .. it’s a funny thing.
It’s also something I have been wondering about lately : how and when does freedom need to be limited ?
The most heard reply to this question is that freedom should be limited as soon as it insults, discriminates or hurts others.
But then another question arises : who determines when something is insulting or discriminating ? Who draws the lines where freedom goes from acceptable to discriminating and therefore no longer acceptable.
Obviously not the one who exercises the right – the one who’s the “subject” then ? Now that can hardly be considered an objective party.
The majority ? Very tricky as well since that may give them even more power to control the minority.
Lots of questions, no easy answers ..
I’ve been thinking about this ever since people got all bent out of shape about an episode of this cooking program on tv, ‘Plat Préféré’. For those of you who don’t know this program : each week Jeroen Meus, the cook, prepares the favorite dish of some famous (usually dead) person.
After several episodes, Jeroen Meus wanted to prepare the favorite dish of Hitler. Protest all over the place ! What WAS he thinking ??
Because of all the reactions and consternation, the program finally got canceled.
Why, I ask myself ? Yes, Hitler was an absolutely horrific person but this was a cooking program ffs ! And like it or not, he WAS en still IS a very famous historical person. And it was just preparing TROUT ! I mean, what are they gonna do : ban trout from every menu from now on ?
Now I had barely digested all this, when not too long after that Humo got banned ! And why ? Because they had DARED to publish photoshopped pics (and yes, the photoshopping was as obvious as the reason why she got the promotion) of Sylvie Ricour and her boss Fernand Koekelberg. Now come on .. if you are really upset about these pics, don’t make such a big deal about it ! If you dont want people to see these pics, then going to court and creating a mediacircus around it really is the way to do it.
Now what about blogging … am I free here to vent and to express my opinion ? Or will I get swamped with comments of people telling me off as soon as I write something that they think is about them ? Or when they think its crossing a line or insulting ?
Now as far as my blog is concerned : I will say whatever I feel like. If you dont like what I write, dont read it. And if I dont want people to criticize my opinions, I shouldnt blog about them.
Cause after all : if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
so someone is free to say people should kill gays or any other group they don’t like or thinks is not worth to be alive?
where is the line between freedom of speech and propaganda towards the ‘enemy’?
Exactly my point : it’s not an easy question to answer. I agree there should be limits, I just dont find it easy to say where they should be or who should get to determine them.
but yet you determine that the cook should have been able the trout show, or you that Humo can post just any picture?
No, I just expressed my opinion about it
hehe , and I agree with your opinion
but you did write we get to grill you in the kitchen!
Hmm. Quite the coincidence: http://rostgoed.wordpress.com/2008/11/20/we-zijn-er-nog-lang-niet/ (dutch blog; not that I want to promote my blog, but the content fits this subject perfectly)
I myself have asked these questions quite often. I’m quick to say all is permitted. But then I have to somewhat contradict myself when I say respect eachother. Everyone has his/her own view on what that is of course. You could state that respecting each other means: Whatever you say or do, you respect the other as long as that person can live by a minimum of means, physical and emotional. Need to work on that phrase some more, but it’s close.
The reactions on ‘Plat préféré’ and that of the Lewinsky wannabe were far from rational, which is obvious. Though maybe this shouldn’t be. But to demand respect based on your emotions of something you didn’t experience yourself is rather ridiculous. Sure, you can sympathize, but acting like you were the one who got violated? I think not. Should you voice your opinion? By all means do. Sharing your thoughts is one thing. Organizing and imposing your views is a whole other story. Turning the other cheek is an action rarely done. Probably because people are afraid of it would become a habit and opinions would become useless. But discussions are everywhere. It’s a great way to learn new things and to broaden your view. Sadly enough not too many people realize this.
Recent events have shown that there is something called “the law” and also something called “a judge” and also something called “an interpretation”.
Freedom of speech is limited, even on your own blog (unfortunately). One can do a thought experiment about the “influence” of a blog, even when you’re a nitwit saying bad things about another nitwit (nitwit = person with zero influence).
Hi Powder!
The Hitler issue is still a very delicate thing. If I would be a holocaust survivor and in my weekly cooking program the favorite dish of a mass murderer would be prepared, I would also be appalled. It’s not a question of freedom of opinion but of modesty and sensitivity to certain issues. Hitler is a heavily charged symbol. Why “insult” people if there is no reason at all to do so? They could easily have chosen another personality.
Humo is an entirely different thing: that’s freedom of the press. The press should be allowed to criticize and publish satires on political issues. Bloggers are citizen journalists and thus also press.
That’s my humble opinion.
What are you cooking?
@mixette I don’t quite agree with you about the people having to be sensitive about Hitler but not about Ricour and the Humo. Why is talking about a mass murderer in a different way than ‘omg he was EVIL EVIL EVIL!!!’ not allowed but posting photoshopped pictures, not even real ones, that can insult a woman and her family in many ways, freedom of speech all of a sudden?
On a personal level Ricour might suffer as much from these pictures being published (I mean, they were insulting) as the child or grandchild of a Holocaust survivor watching Plat préféré with Hitler’s dish on. Would the grandma of Ricour not be horribly upset seeing her granddaughter in insinuating poses with her boss in a national magazine? I’m not saying the Ricour case is as horrible as the Holocaust, I ‘m trying to point out that there are many levels of being upset. There might be more people upset about Hitlers trout, but their level of being upset might just be as high as the super catholic grandma of our little naught police secretary.
Hey, I’m a blogger and I studied journalism. Does that give me the right to photoshop anyone into the most horrific insulting poses? Does that give me the right to say ‘oh look, she ’s obviously doing it with her boss why else would she get this position?’ Hell, no! In journalism there is always something called ‘double checking’ and it should be as holy as Mary’s grail.
Sure sometimes you need to be provoking, or you can write an opinion piece, and satire is welcome, but do it about people that are relevant to the public cause. People that are in the spotlights because they are doing something with their lives that matters to us all. I doubt we can place a police secretary in that category
oh, and Boskabout I don’t get the nitwit train of thought? Pls do explain
@Boskabout : I am more than aware of the existence of “judges” and their “personal interpretations of the law”. What is a breach to one judge, may be laughed away by another one. I guess thats what you get when laws leave room for interpretation.
As far as my blog is concerned, I dont think I am so radical in my ideas or opinions that someone would actually sue me for it, let alone a judge sentence me for it.
Either way, I’ll take my chances
@Mixette : Now if your opinion would be followed, musea about WOII or that mention Hitler should be banned as well, and so should movies or documentaries about him. I think those can be much more hurtfull to survivors of the holocaust than a cooking program where trout is being cooked, with a reference to Hitler.
If trying not to upset the survivors of the holocaust is the main goal, then I guess Hitler shouldnt be mentioned at all anymore.
Of course I know that this is taking a bit far, but I just couldnt understand how a simple cooking program that refers to Hitler, could be considered so harmfull that it wasnt allowed to be shown on tv.
Now just to be clear : I think Hitler is the worst thing that happened to Europe in a long longggg time and I absolutely despise what he did and stood for.
Oh, and I ate fish today ..
@sigrid I assume Boskabout means: if the person making the statements has no influence (see your blogpost on that matter
) why bother getting that person to withdraw his/her words. I could be wrong of course.
@mixette ‘Mein Kampf’ is still being sold. Is Hitler’s ‘plat préféré’ mentioned in there? I don’t know, but if it is, might as well pull that one off the shelves. I’m sure they’ve tried that. What about a show telling what a person such as Hitler liked to eat is horrible and disrespecting? It’s talking about, not preaching. It’s a themed history show, not a way sympathizing of with despots. Don’t want to hear about it, don’t watch it, don’t read about it, don’t listen to it. Why bring even more attention to what you don’t want the mass to see by creating all this commotion. Oh wait… Maybe that’s exactly what they want to do… Hmmm. Clever.
Indeed Gammet. I think it’s insulting to draw attention (by causing controversy) in a cooking program by making it about a person like Hitler. Other documentaries or books about Hitler or even musea are different because their starting point is historical. A cooking program is not.
What are they going to do next? Mussolini’s favorite pasta dish? Ceauşescu? Stalin? Léon Degrelle? Milošević? Pol Pot? Sadam Hussein? Or Dutroux (that we know: boterhammen met choco) Or they could go terorrist and ask themselves what would Mohamed Atta have eaten before he got on the plane? It’s all freedom of speech, but I think it’s insensitive to promote your show by creating a controversy over these things. Unless that is exactly the whole point of your show (eg in a satirical program or in a series like Allô Allô). Jeroen Meus’s point is cooking.
As for Ricour’s hurt feelings. You are right, Sigrid. Humo publishes fake porn pic s every week and it’s not very tasteful. Some are funnier than the one with Ricour but they are always insulting to grandmothers. But Humo is a commercial magazine, not our national subsidized tv channel. The impact and the responsability of those two media is totally different.
Undoubtedly Ricour was harmed emotionally by this picture ( although it was very clear that it was a photoshopped and not a real picture) but does it mean that the whole magazine can be banned?
Humo was banned because the pic is about a higher rank policeman. Ricour herself is of course only a small “player” in this case. It’s all about Fernand Koekelberg and it worries me that this might influence a judge’s decision.
Gammet understood my point. Sorry for the delay! :$