SaxAppeal pulled off shelves

[R/SGT]

I see I have awaken the fanatical atheists

You guys sound like the ANC saying that it is been taken out of context.

So in terms of what you have said, if an artical appeared making similar statement about all atheists, you would not be offend even in the slightest?

 

[PeterCH]

Peter, this is the beauty of living in a country where we have both freedom of speech AND freedom of religion (or lack thereof) - that article is not offensive in the least little bit to me. We often read things that we find offensive for personal reasons - it doesn't mean that we should blanket ban anything that offends - heck, Zuma and his cronies would be mighty happy if that were the case. We often read things that are politically offensive, or racially offensive - why should religion be afforded this special protection?

Because if you claim freedom of religion you also must have freedom from persecution and if you call 'Christians a bunch of c-nts." you are persecuting them. You may as well call blacks a bunch of .... and Jews a bunch of ....
Having a plural society works both ways. If you can call Xtians 'c-nts' you
may also publish an essay on the merits of 'One settler one bullet'.

Okay, if PnP take issue with it, then no problems whatsoever. If it's their project then they have every right to pull it if it doesn't fit with their reader-base or may negatively affect them. Much like racism isn't tolerated on this forum - it's rpm's house after all and he makes the rules. However from a personal perspective, I have no issue with what was printed. It doesn't offend me, and even if it did, it's like water off a duck's back at the end of the day...

As you say 'from a personal perspective' ie from yours. I personally can't care either way as the only thing Sax Appeal does is discredit itself and as said I batted for Stellenbosch and not UCT in my years. There is no literary value in saying the things they said, just pure plain hate speech. They're not saying anything witty, they're just being insulting and if you can't tell the difference between satire and plain insult, you haven't been exposed to too many worthwhile publications.

Racism isn't tolerated because if rpm allowed blatant racism the authorities would pull this site and if hosted abroad they'd indict him under numerous other laws. There is freedom of speech but with that comes responsibility and freedom of speech does not let one post things such as details of cash delivery routes drivers use for example. Freedom of speech has a purpose it's to protect ideas but it works both ways, if you're not upset about someone calling Xtians a bunch of 'c-nts' don't be upset when someone complains about it and then don't blame the people who complained when the thing gets pulled.

In SA we're burdened with the baggage of apartheid and racial conflict (not just black vs white but also English vs Afrikaaner) and we have some special laws to keep the equilibrium - sometimes they appear to impinge on hate speech but that is there because in a society like ours violence can break out any time. Literary satire which points out things is always welcome but IMO religion bashing is so overdone there is nothing new to be said and what can be said is protected as long as you're not vulgar and obscene or inspire hate in what you say.

 

[DJ...]

I see I have awaken the fanatical atheists

You guys sound like the ANC saying that it is been taken out of context.

So in terms of what you have said, if an artical appeared making similar statement about all atheists, you would not be offend even in the slightest?

Not even in the slightest - makes absolutely no difference to me whatsoever. Go ahead...

 

[PeterCH]

Ridiculous. Sure, you found it offensive. You know what? Tough. You do not have the right to not be offended.

BS. Freedom of speech gives him that right.

 

[PeterCH]

How does their article interfere in any way with your freedom of religion?

It calls Christians an 'expletive' and it posts some reasons why they are so.
It can be said to incite intolerance towards them in the way it denigrates them and dehumanizes them.

There is a difference between saying "Christians are wrong to believe...."
and "Christians are a bunch of deluded c....". The latter is violating their human rights. Try that stunt with black people and see what happens.

 

[R/SGT]

South Africa
Act No. 4 of 2000: Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act.[32] contains the following clause:

10. (1) Subject to the proviso in section 12. no person may publish, propagate, advocate or communicate words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds, against any person, that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to -
(a) be hurtful;
(b) be harmful or to incite harm;
(c) promote or propagate hatred.

.

 

[DJ...]

I think Capetonians are a bunch of hippie-loving, degenerate losers with ****-4-brains*. Am I inciting hatred against Capetonians now as well? No. I'm voicing an opinion, not telling people what to think - there is a difference.

Come on. Stop with this petty BS - you're being overly sensitive and in the process bringing out the commie oppressor in you. You are not entitled freedom from being offended - I'm shocked that you even believe that people should be protected by the government from being offended from anything. What an absurd concept!!

*just an example...

 

[icyrus]

BS. Freedom of speech gives him that right.

No it doesn't. It gives him the right to complain that he is offended. It doesn't give him the right to silence anyone who may say something that will offend him.

 

[DJ...]

BS. Freedom of speech gives him that right.

WTF!? My freedom of speech protects me from being offended by someone else? What rocks are you smoking?

 

[hj2k_x]

I have not read the magazine itself at all yet, but from what I have been hearing, this years edition was just not that funny.

As for this whole indaba, the chances of getting the magazine withdrawn are zero and an apology also quite unlikely. If you had to remove all the articles that offended someone, there would be nothing to print - that is the whole idea of the magazine.

 

[darkevil]

The devil made them do it.

 

[ASG]

That's just a heap of baloney. Within the context of the article it is hardly as bad as the CDA intentionally make out. Besides, I am of the personal opinion that if your god does exist, he is a pervert, racist, murderer etc. I'm entitled to this opinion whether it offends you or not. I have my reasons for believing so and I don't often post it because I know that many people take serious offence to it. However I'm perfectly entitled to believing so and voicing it, considering the bible quotes god performing these atrocities. However that's a thread for PD I suppose, not here.

I could just as easily state that religion offends me, and seeing signs for a church infringes on my rights to not believe in religion, using your logic. Just because you're offended doesn't make it hate speech. Grab a twinsaver and deal with it...

You are right, you are entitled to your opinion and you are entitled to express it as you wish (provided it does not constitute hate speech) but you are not entitled to get prissy with people who don't share your opinion, who are offended and exercise their right to stand up for their beliefs and demand your tolerance of those beliefs.

Don't you dare for one second expect that this right of free speech only goes one way.

Is this article is highly offensive to many christains? - Yes
Is this article is also protected by free speech? - Yes
Do those offended have the right to express their view? - Yes

Weather you like it or not South Africa still has a very large Christian population (compared to other countries). If PnP thinks that pulling this mag is beneficial to their business image, let them do it. (It's their right too.)

Now you've expressed your view, no need to carry on. Move on to something else and leave people to their views.

 

[PeterCH]

No it doesn't. It gives him the right to complain that he is offended. It doesn't give him the right to silence anyone who may say something that will offend him.

Excuse me I must have read the article wrong but did you say the person who complained also SILENCED the writer of the magazine? I must have missed that.

 

[PeterCH]

WTF!? My freedom of speech protects me from being offended by someone else? What rocks are you smoking?

He has the freedom to state that he is offended in response to the magazine.

 

[PeterCH]

I have not read the magazine itself at all yet, but from what I have been hearing, this years edition was just not that funny.

As for this whole indaba, the chances of getting the magazine withdrawn are zero and an apology also quite unlikely. If you had to remove all the articles that offended someone, there would be nothing to print - that is the whole idea of the magazine.

Which is why people who are offended should return the magazine for a full refund and think twice next year about purchasing it, know that UCT Shawco supports this form of distateful speech and that the advertisers/sponsors also back it - ie do not support these groups, vote with your wallets.

 

[hj2k_x]

Which is why people who are offended should return the magazine for a full refund and think twice next year about purchasing it, know that UCT Shawco supports this form of distateful speech and that the advertisers/sponsors also back it - ie do not support these groups, vote with your wallets.

Exactly. Perhaps I am offended by the Christian religion and churches. That does not give me the right to demand that they all be pulled down.

I admit that it is strange for RAG and SHAWCO to be associated with such a publication - it seems that standards have been slipping over the years and what once was a magzine which focussed on wit and sarcasm now seems to rely solely on shock and offence.

 

[daveza]

The religious offense or non-offense is not irrelevant here.

Pick n Pay has the right to sell or not sell the mag so there's no debate there either.

What is relevant is that it's just stupid to piss off the people who are donating money to a charitable cause. Next year people are going to be reluctant to buy this mag and the losers will be the charities.

 

[BinaryJack]

I am assuming the same fukkers that had the mag pulled will donate equal to the losses incurred by the charities...wait...that is expecting too much.

By the way, it is C.U.N.T (Christian who Understands No Theorems) and not cûnt.
The 2nd is a naughty, naughty word.

 

[Surv0]

What a joke, yes the whole farking saxappeal is a joke, get a sense of humour damnit.
Id be interested to see it switched the other way, let a bunch of fundementalist christians make some jokes about atheists.. We will laugh with you, not take it to the courts... Clearly religion breads this type of conflict, its soo awesome not believing in any, I can absolve myself from problems such as that.
Theyve taken it completely out of proportion... get a life ffs, if god exists im sure he can take a joke, and im sure he can defend himself if he wanted to.

Argh this **** just makes me more irritated with religion...

 

[hj2k_x]

What is relevant is that it's just stupid to piss off the people who are donating money to a charitable cause. Next year people are going to be reluctant to buy this mag and the losers will be the charities.

Thing is, like I said, if you take out all the offensive things in there, then there won't be a mag left!

I highly doubt that this whole affair will affect sales of next year's mag at all. People offended by such things have no place buying what is an offensive publication in the 1st place.