- Dragon Ball Z Forum
- →
- The Lounge
- →
- Deep Discussion
- →
- Freedom of expression - how far does it get?
| We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum. If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away. Click here to Register! If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk If you're already a member please log in to your account: |
| Freedom of expression - how far does it get? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 21 2017, 10:57 AM (587 Views) | |
| ahill1 | Sep 21 2017, 10:57 AM Post #1 |
 
|
Recently on my country there was an exhibition that contained an 'strange' picture of Jesus, which was seen with bad eyes by lots of religious people. The aforementioned image was this: Spoiler: click to toggle The plataform that would expose such work of art gave in to the pressure of lots of people manifesting against the content of it (calling it a disrepect towards Jesus and to the people who believes in him, asking people to put their parent on Jesus' place, etc) and cancelled it. Worth noting that such wasn't public and only people that wished to would see it. But, like I said, it was cancelled out. Do you agree it should be cancelled or that such was a step backward to the freedom of expression, and what might be offending for ones might not be for others? Edited by ahill1, Sep 21 2017, 10:59 AM.
|
 |
 
|
|
|
Sep 21 2017, 01:23 PM Post #2 |
|
I'm not really sure what's going on in the picture, so it's hard for me to say. It's kind of blurry and makes it difficult to see what's in his hands. I see a hot dog, a fish, boxing gloves...? I think? All in all it's a very ugly painting. I can see why some people would be offended by it, but people are offended by anything. It's ultimately up to the museum/exhibit whether or not they want to cancel though. If this were a legal issue, it would be an entirely different discussion. |
|
|
|
| ahill1 | Sep 21 2017, 10:35 PM Post #3 |
|
Talking about religion and Jesus is always a delicate subject. People get offended by it easily. But I still disagree with the exhibition being cancelled due to people getting offended by it... I mean, it wasn't in a public space, and only people who wished to would see it. Cancelling it is like controlling what people should or shouldn't see it. Jesus is also wearing a wooden block and a sexual stuff. I think this is basically showing that what most people idealize might not be what Jesus really was... what if he were a black person, a woman, an homossexual? Does this make him 'less Jesus'? |
|
|
|
| * Mitas | Sep 22 2017, 10:00 AM Post #4 |
It truly was a Shawshank redemption
|
It really comes down to how invested the people are - the museum, in this case - in the expression in question. People have a right to be offended, and therefore a right to complain (which falls under freedom of expression itself). You can't stop that. What you can do is decide whether protecting said expression is worth the hassle of putting up with those complaints. In this case, the museum decided it wasn't worth it, which is fine. Ideally though, unless it's a serious issue e.g. bigotry, people would just take the offence personally and let it rest there, rather than taking a 'I don't like it, so it shouldn't exist' stance. Especially when, like you said, they would have had to have gone out of their way to see it. But that's people for you. |
 "Then you've got the chance to do better next time." "Next time?" "Course. Doing better next time. That's what life is." | |
|
|
|
| EMIYA | Sep 23 2017, 05:14 AM Post #5 |
"I am the bone of my sword."
|
I think those who are "offended" should honestly get over it. It's an art piece, nothing more. Oh goodness, Jesus Christ is holding a hotdog...how slanderous. I have a strong feeling that if Jesus came down, he'd be more offended that his so called "followers" were all wearing the icon of his torture and death with pride. Or the fact that his most popular movie is the one where he's beaten brutally and then dies upon said icon. But the one truly at fault here is the museum. There was nothing wrong with the art piece and it wasn't even public. Nobody was forcing anyone to look at it. Yet they gave into pressure. Who knows what they'll give into next. It's a huge set back for freedom of expression. It says that those who are offended can get what they want despite there being no offensive material at hand and the other side must cave in despite it not even being public. You are never going to have progress like this. As stupid as I think those who are offended by this are and how they should get over it, its the museum that's really at fault here. They should've taken the high ground here but instead, they showed that they were the weak ones. Could you imagine if Rosa Parks, when told to go to the back of the bus said... "You know what? You're right, this is too much trouble, I'll just go back there. I'm sorry white man, please, have my seat. I was wrong." No, she just as many other people, stood their ground in the face of adversity because they knew they were right. Even if the world was against them, they didn't give into the pressure. This museum failed to do that. We've seen this kind of attitude before, where people are afraid to stand up for what's right and instead stand up for what's popular, even if its fundamentally wrong. And it was only until someone stood up to the pressure that we finally got rid of slavery, that we finally gave women rights, that the civil rights came to pass, that gay rights were passed, etc. The museum should've stood up for what was right, because unless there was a secret hate message behind the image, they were not in the wrong. |
|
|
|
| Rockman | Sep 23 2017, 12:47 PM Post #6 |
hoighty-toighty
|
I mean, this really isn't a question of who should get over it or otherwise. It's more of an exercise in knowing which group will be the first to get offended, and why. For example, the cases in the US where because Christians are placing their Ten Commandments and depictions of biblical statues on State grounds. So the church of Satan decides that they will also attempt to place a statue of Baphomet near the same areas. This of course does not fly with the Christians and they get gridlocked in court. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jul/26/satanic-temple-sculpture-detroit-oklahoma It has come to the point, specifically with Religion, that "getting over it" isn't even in their vocabulary. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/draw-muhammad-shooting-garland-what-we-know-about-texas-attack-n353081 Jesus holding a hot dog was clearly drawn for the purpose of proving a point. That point being directly or indirectly a clear statement that Religion has an issue with freedom in general. |
 JAke is a copyright of Spazo and Pickle Flavored Fudge Pops inc. | |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
 |
|
| « Previous Topic · Deep Discussion · Next Topic » |
| Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
 4:53 PM Jul 13
|
Theme Designed by McKee91
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy