Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Yes

9 (30%)

No

21 (70%)

Total Members Voted: 29

[Kogan Loloklam]

So, the USA has boycotted the Iranian speech. Leaving aside the question if it serves any purpose at all, the question is should US political leaders ever boycott an international discourse that consists only of speaking?

The United States of America holds freedom of speech as one of it's ideals. This allows someone to theoretically make a real bigoted video and post it online where millions can be insulted by it and count on suffering no real legal concequences for it.

So do USA elected officials, who are supposed to represent the people and the principles of free speech, really have any right to boycott hateful speech on a international level because they don't like it? Discuss.

[Zrk2]

I think it sends a message that what is being said is unconscionable and that the USA will not be a party to it. For instance when Ahmedinijad gets up and goes on about how the holocaust is a lie I have no problem with the USA departing. IIRC Canada does it from time to time.

[Kogan Loloklam]

But don't you think that might also send a message that America doesn't back it's principle of freedom of speech when it isn't something America agrees with? Creating an attitude of "You are free to speak as long as it is speech I agree with"?

Isn't there some kind of obligation to be willing to be subjected to the stupid and the hateful if you really do believe in allowing people to freely express themselves?
How is this different than allowing people to march in public and visible spaces saying that "God Hates Fags"?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Just because someone can speak freely doesn't mean you have to listen to them.

[Pnx]

But don't you think that might also send a message that America doesn't back it's principle of freedom of speech when it isn't something America agrees with? Creating an attitude of "You are free to speak as long as it is speech I agree with"?

Isn't there some kind of obligation to be willing to be subjected to the stupid and the hateful if you really do believe in allowing people to freely express themselves?
How is this different than allowing people to march in public and visible spaces saying that "God Hates Fags"?

Just because someone can speak freely doesn't mean you have to listen to them.

This, I would also add that freedom of speech also means the freedom to disagree, and that it doesn't mean the state itself doesn't get a voice when it comes to making opinions about subjects, especially subjects of diplomacy.

[Kogan Loloklam]

Sure, but the American Political leadership is specifically there to represent the American People. They certainly should express disagreement, but is walking out the right way? It's in essence denying the other side the right to address them, which is a level above "not agreeing with it" I think. It's not about one individual, but the representitive of millions.

[Zrk2]

But don't you think that might also send a message that America doesn't back it's principle of freedom of speech when it isn't something America agrees with? Creating an attitude of "You are free to speak as long as it is speech I agree with"?

Isn't there some kind of obligation to be willing to be subjected to the stupid and the hateful if you really do believe in allowing people to freely express themselves?
How is this different than allowing people to march in public and visible spaces saying that "God Hates Fags"?

They are free to speak but if listening to them lends credence to whatever drivel they are spouting then I feel that one should leave.

For instance when dictatorships get appointed to UN panels for democracy or Saudi Arabia ends up on the committee for women's rights then I feel that walking out to show one's lack of support is completely justified.

[Eagleon]

No, if anything we should be careful to hear everything being said. Not only is it vital to maintaining a clear picture of the situation, walking out is saying diplomacy is not possible. It's difficult, but you have to endure this kind of crap to get anything done - the other side will not change just because you think they're unreasonable. Everyone always thinks they have the side of reason, therefore you'll always be unreasonable by not agreeing with them, and if you won't listen to them at all, you've edged into the territory of insanity.

To the point, what we did was dangerous. It can only be a step towards conflict, the most it did was give us a few points with other equally offended countries. If they don't feel they can talk, the only other direction or non-direction to take (from their perspective) is war or maintaining the status quo.

[Flying Dice]

It's juvenile and hardly a shining example of diplomacy. Our representatives aren't there to feel good and make a bunch of friends, they're there to gather information on the views of other nations and present our own. Throwing a metaphorical tantrum and storming out whenever someone pulls out some hate speech does us no good at all. Issue a statement condemning it? Certainly. Speak against it? Of course. "Screw you guys, I'm going home!" is not acceptable behavior.

[ChairmanPoo]

What was the content of the speech?

[Flying Dice]

Given that it was Iran, probably Holocaust denial.

[Grek]

It's not about one individual, but the representitive of millions.

I'm a political realist. If you look at the real effects of the US delegation walking out (as opposed to the symbolic effects which, IMO, are only important in that they cause real effects) then you see nothing to worry about. Is Iran going to invade us over it? Is Iran going to chance their opinion of the US at all over this? Will any US citizens interested in hearing the speech themselves be prevented from hearing it? Is anyone in the US forbidden from expressing support for the speech, if they want to? No to all of those. The only real effect this will have is that it will upset the ultra-religious minority in Iran and provoke eye-rolls in the modernized majority. Which is exactly what dinner jacket wants, since that's getting his base worked up to support him.

[mainiac]

Walking out doesn't deny diplomacy it is a form of diplomacy.  It's a symbolic protest.  It's not like walking out prevents anyone from reading the transcript later.

[Nilik]

No problem with this whatsoever. If I were stuck in a room with someone loudly denying the holocaust for any length of time, I'd probably end up doing something I'd regret later. Freedom of speech != forcing someone to listen to yours.

[Scelly9]

No problem with this whatsoever. If I were stuck in a room with someone loudly denying the holocaust for any length of time, I'd probably end up doing something I'd regret later. Freedom of speech != forcing someone to listen to yours.

Agreed.