Rough critical review RESTART!

You would not believe how much I wish I had published my notes on my dissertation on here.

My laptop has died..... FUN. After hours on the phone to HP, (not the brown sauce lot, the computer peeps, they told have taken my laptop away to replace the hard drive. Which means I've lost all my files. And of course being a dunce, I didn't think to back up just yet. SWEAR SWEAR SWEARY SWEAR!

So anyway, hello.

Here are some notes that are at the moment but will become my critical review. Hell having to borrow computers or be in the unfriendly environment and crashy-computer-land we know as Bournemouth University.


CAMPBELL, C. Ed. 1980. Do we need a bill of rights? Temple Smith, London.

This basically discusses the need for a Bill of Rights, as the title suggests. It was essentially a waste of time me reading. It just made me angry. It was full of fuddy duddy opinioniated fools arguing whether people should have their rights protected (erm, of course they should.....). It wasn't very helpful to my research. Although I am aware I need to show both sides, I need to find fuddy duddies who hate people who might ffend their religion. Which isn't hard. Although it did hacve The European Convention on Human Rights as an appendix, and I'm sure I'll cite this. Particularly relevant are Articles 9, 10 and 14

"Article 9

1 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2 Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 10

1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibililties, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
...

Article 14

The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status."

Worthy of note - Christian Voice broke Articles 10.2 "for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence" in publicising the personal addresses of BBC executives. The Jerry Springer 'team' and all of the BBC did not break any rules in the convention in broadcasting the Opera. why weren't Christian Voice prosecuted? Or were they? (Check this out)



COLEMAN, S. 1997 Stilled Tongues; from Soapbox to Soundbite. Porcupine Press, London.

p ii
Without deliberation, democratic are not exercised in a meaningful way. If the preferences that determine the results of democratic procedures are unreflective or ignoratn they lose their claim to political authority over us. Deliberation is necessary if the claims of democracy are not to be deligitimated' (James, S. Fishkin, 'Democracy and Deliberation')

Dangers of discussion in freedom of speech becoming too abstract. Contextualise historicallyu and with examples.

James Nayler, Quaker preacher.

p1
In 1653 he had said of the interests represented by Church and Government: 'God is against you covetous cruel opressors who grind in the faces of the poor and needy.'
...In 1656 Nayler's entry into the city of Bristol, where he had come topreach, was somewhat eccentric. Believing he was Christ, he rode on a donkey, and, ahead of him, a group of women strew palm leaves. The Christ-like imagery secured his arrest.

so...after dfeliberation, they decided to bore through his tongue rather than brand him with a B on the forehead, or their first though, execution.

p3
"...within the half-forgotten world of medieval verbal dissent there was one other strategy, the history of which is somewhat hazy and usually ignored: the freedom to resort to folly.
In one sense, the right to speak freely as a fool is both a perennial liberty and a response. To say what is forbidden is the universal prerogative of the jester, the half-wit and the crazed prophet. To dismiss as mere fools those who use their freedom to speak thei minds, even where it does exist, as in the case of Speakers' Corner or the modern radio call-in programme, is an easy substitute for rationally confronting the substance of their comments. So, the fool has tended to stay safe, if usually insignificant"

- Is the stand-up comedian the modern day equivalent of the court jester in this respect? Blasphemous jokes are commonplace inc omedy clubs around the country, it is only when they are moved into the more 'culturally superior' medium of theatre that there is a problem.... (Jerry)

"The Fools were a disparate crowd, mainly playing to the prejudices of their audiences, and propounding a kind of incoherent nihilism in response to the injustice of the world.
The Fools most certainly found audiences. The rarity of outspokenness within the conines of feudal ecclesiastical totalitarianism made Fools an obvious magnet for common folk enduring silent grievances.

- Is the change in the world reflected by the growing audiences and general popularity or stand-up comedy? People need to hear their worries of the state of the world aired in public.

History of legal repression of free speech.

p6
(paraphrased...)
Under the reign of Mary Tudor, Gilbert Boune, was nearly struck by a dagger thrown at him in the course of his sermon (thrown by a heckler)

The preacher has as mcuh right as the heckler & vice versa? Offence vs. Offending.

The book is largely about free speech debate in public arenas and doesn't focus much on relgious debate.

Reminds me of when I was in Edinburgh though, I saw a Christian Group giving a public lecture in the street. Is this any different from an atheist ecpressing their views in public? both should be allowed. People can DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES!! (See Stewart Lee interview about freedom of speech relying on an educated population)

p157
"Debate cannot be stilled, and indeed, in a properly functioning system of propaganda, it should not be, because it has a system-reinforcing character if constrained within proper bounds. What is essential is to set the bounds firmly. Conroversy may rage as long as it adheres to the presuppositions that define the consensus of the elites, and it should be encouraged within these bounds, thus helping to establish these doctrines as the very condition thinkable thought while reinforcing the belief that freedom reigns"
(CHOMSKY, N. 1989. Necessary Illusions: Though Control in Democratic Societies, London p.48)

There, for now.

I hate computers.

Sophie.