So there’s a SMH article debating the morality of euthanasia/infanticide of children born with defects: “Philosophers’ claim over moral right to kill newborns sparks outrage“.
In it there’s the usual example of scumbag behaviour when faced with disagreeing with something controversial.
Julian Savulescu, the journal’s editor, said the authors had received death threats since posting the article last week, via the publication’s own website and online discussion forums.
His goal was ”not to present the Truth or promote some one moral view. It is to present well reasoned argument,” wrote Professor Savulescu, from the University of Oxford. If others made a similarly refined case for recriminalising abortion he would also publish that.
”What is disturbing is not the arguments in this paper nor its publication in an ethics journal. It is the hostile, abusive, threatening responses that it has elicited … Proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat.”
So I entirely agree with Mr Savulescu’s statement on this – making death threats is a shitty and illegal thing to do. You might notice that I have some pretty strong opinions on things that people have said – but I wouldn’t be phoning in death threats or waiting in the bushes to shoot someone that I disagree with. I might call them a variety of names in amongst reasoned opposition to their argument – but violence/death threats are never acceptable.
Anyhow, I posted up a fairly non-controversial post and the SMH rejected it.
Here’s the post:
Clik here to view.
My rejected comment on the article - controversial? Really?
What do you think? Is that controversial enough to be rejected? Or is it that I’m not allowed to mention Godwin’s law (some sort of 2nd order Godwin’s law whereby you can’t mention mentioning nazis?).
Seems a bit of a strange one to censor someone who says death threats are unacceptable and reasoned debate is the only decent option.
