He has always been a class 1 idiot, but in this country, which supposedly has freedom of speech, he should not be pilloried for saying stupid/controversial things; others equally have the right to respond in their own way - and they did.
As Voltaire was (wrongly) said to proclaim, "I may not agree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it".
Ron.
I agree, Ron, to a point. But you could also say that the people criticising him have their right to do that, and the BBC have the right to sack someone for what they consider to be gross misconduct. Like most things, it works both ways.
'Rights' are subjective and, often, one persons rights can be trumped by another person's rights. i.e. The Sussex's rights to leave hospital with their newborn without people posting offensive tweets.
They are strongly in the public eye/domain and in a highly privileged position, so hardly a level playing field. Not to defend Baker, but there were bigger guns aimed at him; did he really have to lose his job?
Ron.
Freedom of speech does not equate to freedom to insult. It is a rare day I agree with STEMO but he is right when he says that one's 'right' goes both ways regardless of whether you are in the public eye or not (and whether or not it is through your own choosing). Otherwise you could say that my right to drive a motor vehicle supercedes everyone else's right to being safe on the road, which is clearly pish.
The quote which you mention was actually made by someone else to describe Voltaire's views on freedom of speech, not by Voltaire himself. Additionally, the context of said quote was very different from this situation. Voltaire was against aristocratic authority and how it often suppressed freedom of speech, i.e. state-level suppression of rights and not freedom to say what you like even if it erodes other people's rights to not be subjected to offense. Voltaire himself was a proponent of a constitutional monarchy which protects the rights of the individual.
I feel the use of this quote in this context is very misplaced.
Read me properly: I did say wrongly attributed to Voltaire - it was actually Beatrice Hall.
I also conceded that "rights" go both ways, even though too many claim spurious rights nowadays.
Sorry Gaffers, no offence intended, but your motoring analogy is a specious one and irrelevant. But I still love you!
Ron.
[puts glasses on] Ah, yes. Sorry I honestly failed to see the part in brackets. Maybe I just got in to autopilot as I often do when I see that Voltaire quote
I do not agree with your interpretation of my motoring analagy but that's fine
I think what you mean is that different people get offended by different things and it is difficult, oft impossible, to know who will be offended by what. Sometimes I feel the offense taken is justified, sometimes not. A whole load of subjectivity goes in to each scenario and I bet no two people will feel the same about every single one. I, for example, take great offense at anyone making fun of cyclists getting hurt or killed but this is due to my own experiences as both a cyclist and from what happened to my brother. Yet not everyone will feel the same because they have had different life experiences.
In this particular case though it is well known, and widely considered unacceptable, to conflate race with apes of any kind. That Danny worked on 5 Live, a channel that hosts a lot of football and will certainly know the challenges the sport has had with this very specific insult, and that he claimed not to know it would cause offense is simply absurd and for that he deserved to be fired.
