Against all censorship

Recently( this means for the last 5 years or so) I have been watching with some consistency, new and old stand up comedians, and trying to take life's real lessons from things they say. It is no surprise that what they say is filled not just with irony and satire, but also with truth and honesty. I have however stumbled upon something which qualifies for a post in this blog.

I am sure that when these comedian guys sit and write their routine, they always ask themselves as to what is it that they can say that that will most offend their listeners. and then they proceed to say just that. Much of stand up comedy(pronounced life) is based on saying things that people think about but yet cant never bring themselves about to saying them. It is left on the shoulders of the stand up comedian therefore, to try to think of those things and then say them. This also charges right through the domain of self expression and freedom of speech. But what is freedom of speech really. I mean at what point does an idea becomes so uncivil that it is definitely, absolutely, completely, totally, wholly, and utterly inappropriate to voice? In other words, at what point does an idea NOT fall under the umbrella term freedom of expression. or is there never a time like that. Maybe everything falls under freedom of speech. Lets take a sweet journey down an idea lane to check to see at what point is it definitely wrong to say something.

Being supportive of the LGBT rights

One race of people is superior to another (brown people are inferior to yellow people for example)

Being Supportive of the Nazi regime

Claiming that slavery is justified and being all up for its reinstatement.

Being generally or specifically profane and godless

Being up for human limb mutilation

Being up for incest

Being in favour of a Nuclear holocaust.
.

Or is it that just about everything that I can think of, I can say? because after all, ideas are bulletproof.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSLeuTvRPdI

Question of Life and Death

So the year is 1945 and the backdrop is Europe, the allied forces are marching in from the West and the Red army assaults the German ranks form the east. The war seems to be all but over for the germans. The red army penetrates further into the enemy lines and before the conclusive Battle of Berlin, finds what appears to be a prisoner camp. They soon realise it is nothing like any other camp that has ever existed , or hopefully ever will. The Nazis have massacred millions of people in the territories they have occupied. People from the nearby village are made to see the camp and the ensuing horror and asked why could they let that happen. Their reply is that they didn't know anything of the sort had been happening. As per statistic, 11 million people perished in the camps.

There is a furore of emotion and reprimand, the world can not believe what has just transpired. There is news that Britain knew about the atrocities they were being committed, but chose not to bring them to the worlds attention and didn't react the way it should have or could have. It is a grim time for humans as a specie. International treaties are signed, and promises made to protect human life and to uphold its sanctity. There is only opinion about this, why didn't anyone do anything to stop it?

The year is 2013, and in one particularly politically unstable part of the world a civil war is raging. In two years the death toll reaches a 100,000 people. Internationally there is little or no response because no country wants to interfere in the workings of another.

According to international sanctions, chemical weapons can not be used even by countries who are at war. But in late August the world finds out that chemical weapons have indeed been used in that region though it is unclear by whom. There are bodies of children with no signs of wounds. The world sees as the death toll rises. But since international sanctions have now been breached , the allied forces take upon themselves to not allow this to happen

The most recent recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize President Obama makes  it absolutely clear that he wants to take a military action against the governing regime of the said country. As I write this, the US congress is deciding weather or not to approve the military action.

People around the world are reacting to it differently, elements loyal to and in support of the US are of the opinion that outside intervention is mandatory. Other states, organisations and people think differently. Surely the US has learnt its lessons from the war in Iraq ,Afghanistan and Vietnam. Good or bad it must decide what it needs to do.

In my writing this blog I  have compared two events. The intention was not to pull the Texas Sharpshooter or glide down the slippery slope, it was only to highlight that these are big decisions which will have repercussions throughout the world and are difficult to take. Just when should one state decide to intervene in the workings of another is a tricky question to answer. Generally when faced with such important questions my usual response is to turn to the only thing that helps in time of need. Star Trek.

However there is a problem here as well because in the words of Spock "the needs and suffering of the many outweigh the suffering of the few" but we also know that Juan Luc Picard maintains "I refuse to let arithmetic answer questions pertaining to human life and suffering". We know when star Trek cant give you a direct answer to a moral social intellectual and cultural problem , then all is doomed.