the subject of the article is more meaningful in today's world. This topic will not have any conclusive end even we debate it relentlessly. The freedom of speech & the freedom of expression has to be respected by every human being & the society which follows these principles religiously, will be the most matured society. Of course, for the followers of these principles there should not be place for the slightest of physical offence/violence. However it becomes very difficult to remain without physical offence as we came across more number of aggressive critics.
It's not quite the same thing, though. Neo-Nazis, anti-trans activists & other such groups have suppression of people's rights, disruption of civil order and breaking of laws as their goals. Nudists do not.
To be fair, some nudists are prepared to try and push the boundaries of laws that they consider out of date or discriminatory, but I don't think that militant activism is the hallmark of naturists.
Too often “free speech” is manifested as “I am free to say what I like but you disagree so you must be silenced”. If you believe in having the freedom to voice your beliefs, you should allow that same freedom to others and be prepared to debate the difference - are you so unsure of your beliefs you cannot defend them? Just because you disagree with someone doesn’t make you right or them wrong, and if you’re not prepared to debate how can you convince them they’re wrong?
Not only "if you disagree you must be silenced", but also you must be silenced if you call out the hypocrisy of not allowing those who disagree, the freedom to speak.
Free speech only matters to the unpopular and controversial.
Speech that most people accept doesn't need protection. Neither does government approved speech. Only speech that someone somewhere is determined to silence.
There is no right not to be offended. If that is the case then nudism is a failed cause. No point in pursuing it further. Find me a random group of a hundred people and I'll find a dozen in it that are mortally offended by open public nudity. Their taking offense is just as valid as another person taking offense at speech opposing transgender rights. Though, truth be told, taking offense at anything is usually disingenuous.
If you don't like what a speaker says, don't go to the speech. Counter the speaker with good speech. Maybe even peacefully picket outside. Go beyond this and you are no better than the person you oppose.
I don't believe anyone is genuinely offended by nudity. Everyone knows what a naked human looks like and they regularly see their own and other people's in certain situations, like beach and swimming pool changing rooms. And don't get me started on the porn industry and the number of people, both men and women, that pore over photos of naked people in sexually provocative poses!
So, offended at nudity? Embarrassed and uncomfortable, maybe, but even then only because a naked person in a public place has dared to step outside society's mores - nothing else. Even New Zealand guidelines for prosecutors state that a complaint of public nudity based solely on someone saying they were offended doesn't warrant further action.
I think for many, the reaction to nudity is a conditioned one and often people react how they think they should rather than how they actually feel. Look at the way nudity is often reacted to in TV programmes, an animated overreaction, shielding their eyes or turning away, often accompanied by an "eeeew" or another such comment of disapproval. I honestly feel that if nudity was treated with indifference in the media, that public outrage over social nudity would be significantly reduced.
Totally agree! Yes, the typical reaction of "eeeeew!" is simply done to demonstrate that they are on-side with what they think their contemporaries' reactions would be. People are very reluctant to stand alone against a majority tradition. You never see a public protest with just a solo participant.
The purpose of anti-trans activists is to suppress or completely eliminate the rights of trans people. So why shouldn't trans people at least be justified to suppress the activities of their antagonists? At least if not done in a physically harmful way? What if it were "naturists" instead of "trans people" in this matter? In fact, naturists are usually the victims in such cases. Should we not respond in some effective way?
Naturists would be delighted to coexist with those who are "offended". But they're almost always not allowed to. Being "offended" is a far less serious thing than being fined or incarcerated. Just ask Stephen Gough.
I think that both sides have the right to voice their beliefs, but as soon as either side uses violence, then they lose the argument. We live in a society of outrage and offence on many issues and spend so much time screaming across barricades rather than talking and trying to understand.
I agree in principal. I can't speak to other countries but in the US you can pick pretty much any objective measuring tool you like and most of the time there'll be one side doing much more screaming and much less talking & trying to onderstand than the other. It's rarely 50/50 and often the same groups are involved regardless of the issue.
the subject of the article is more meaningful in today's world. This topic will not have any conclusive end even we debate it relentlessly. The freedom of speech & the freedom of expression has to be respected by every human being & the society which follows these principles religiously, will be the most matured society. Of course, for the followers of these principles there should not be place for the slightest of physical offence/violence. However it becomes very difficult to remain without physical offence as we came across more number of aggressive critics.
It's not quite the same thing, though. Neo-Nazis, anti-trans activists & other such groups have suppression of people's rights, disruption of civil order and breaking of laws as their goals. Nudists do not.
To be fair, some nudists are prepared to try and push the boundaries of laws that they consider out of date or discriminatory, but I don't think that militant activism is the hallmark of naturists.
Too often “free speech” is manifested as “I am free to say what I like but you disagree so you must be silenced”. If you believe in having the freedom to voice your beliefs, you should allow that same freedom to others and be prepared to debate the difference - are you so unsure of your beliefs you cannot defend them? Just because you disagree with someone doesn’t make you right or them wrong, and if you’re not prepared to debate how can you convince them they’re wrong?
Not only "if you disagree you must be silenced", but also you must be silenced if you call out the hypocrisy of not allowing those who disagree, the freedom to speak.
Free speech only matters to the unpopular and controversial.
Speech that most people accept doesn't need protection. Neither does government approved speech. Only speech that someone somewhere is determined to silence.
There is no right not to be offended. If that is the case then nudism is a failed cause. No point in pursuing it further. Find me a random group of a hundred people and I'll find a dozen in it that are mortally offended by open public nudity. Their taking offense is just as valid as another person taking offense at speech opposing transgender rights. Though, truth be told, taking offense at anything is usually disingenuous.
If you don't like what a speaker says, don't go to the speech. Counter the speaker with good speech. Maybe even peacefully picket outside. Go beyond this and you are no better than the person you oppose.
I don't believe anyone is genuinely offended by nudity. Everyone knows what a naked human looks like and they regularly see their own and other people's in certain situations, like beach and swimming pool changing rooms. And don't get me started on the porn industry and the number of people, both men and women, that pore over photos of naked people in sexually provocative poses!
So, offended at nudity? Embarrassed and uncomfortable, maybe, but even then only because a naked person in a public place has dared to step outside society's mores - nothing else. Even New Zealand guidelines for prosecutors state that a complaint of public nudity based solely on someone saying they were offended doesn't warrant further action.
I think for many, the reaction to nudity is a conditioned one and often people react how they think they should rather than how they actually feel. Look at the way nudity is often reacted to in TV programmes, an animated overreaction, shielding their eyes or turning away, often accompanied by an "eeeew" or another such comment of disapproval. I honestly feel that if nudity was treated with indifference in the media, that public outrage over social nudity would be significantly reduced.
Totally agree! Yes, the typical reaction of "eeeeew!" is simply done to demonstrate that they are on-side with what they think their contemporaries' reactions would be. People are very reluctant to stand alone against a majority tradition. You never see a public protest with just a solo participant.
I think Parker Posie should sue Posie Parker for trademark violation.
I would be interested in why the activist chose a name so close to that of the actress.
The purpose of anti-trans activists is to suppress or completely eliminate the rights of trans people. So why shouldn't trans people at least be justified to suppress the activities of their antagonists? At least if not done in a physically harmful way? What if it were "naturists" instead of "trans people" in this matter? In fact, naturists are usually the victims in such cases. Should we not respond in some effective way?
Think about it. Lots pf people are offended by naturists. By this logic, they are justified in suppressing them.
Naturists would be delighted to coexist with those who are "offended". But they're almost always not allowed to. Being "offended" is a far less serious thing than being fined or incarcerated. Just ask Stephen Gough.
I think that both sides have the right to voice their beliefs, but as soon as either side uses violence, then they lose the argument. We live in a society of outrage and offence on many issues and spend so much time screaming across barricades rather than talking and trying to understand.
I agree in principal. I can't speak to other countries but in the US you can pick pretty much any objective measuring tool you like and most of the time there'll be one side doing much more screaming and much less talking & trying to onderstand than the other. It's rarely 50/50 and often the same groups are involved regardless of the issue.