Response from BD to Guardian op-ed piece on Dressage

[skewbaldpony]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think freedom of speech entails being allowed to express any opinion one may have

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't it??

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if you criticise dressage apparently

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh sorry, I thought you said it was comedy, not criticism ....

 

[Hullabaloo]

[ QUOTE ]
Well actually it does, but responsible journalism requires you to think before you express an opinion, what the consequences might be. Of course, when you're preaching to the choir, and playing up to all their prejudices (and that applies to the Mail or the Sun, just as much as the Guardian) you can be irresponsible to your heart's content and the readership will love you for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haven't you gone away yet

I'm worried now that a light hearted article knocking dressage will have dire consequences for civilisation as we know it. When I read it, I assumed people would laugh (or not), ignore and carry on with their lives as if nothing had happened. Now that I realise its a piece of irresponsible journalism which is going to have animal rights activists rioting in the streets, I'm very afraid.

 

[Hullabaloo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think freedom of speech entails being allowed to express any opinion one may have

[/ QUOTE ]

Doesn't it??

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if you criticise dressage apparently

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh sorry, I thought you said it was comedy, not criticism ....

[/ QUOTE ]

I say comedy, you say criticism ... I say tomato, you say tomato (oops that doesn't work when you write it down

)

 

[CracklinRosie]

This is clearly a case of a very intelligent chap actually feeling a bit threatened by something he doesn't understand. I'm sure if we asked a Psychologist they'd agree. People always lash out at the things they don't understand and then call it comedy!!!!

 

[Hullabaloo]

[ QUOTE ]
This is clearly a case of a very intelligent chap actually feeling a bit threatened by something he doesn't understand. I'm sure if we asked a Psychologist they'd agree. People always lash out at the things they don't understand and then call it comedy!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would he feel threatened? Don't say dressage riders are going to take to the streets too. What happens if they run into the Guardian wielding animal rights activists who have also been unleashed by this terrible article. It could be carnage.
I think I'll play it safe and go back to bed for the day

 

[Booboos]

Freedom of speech is restricted in a variety of ways, the most common restrictions include:
- when it harms others
- when it incites others to violence
- when it offends others (this one is very contentious, e.g. see the famous Dutch cartoons case very recently, and will have to include strong arguments about why offence is a serious form of harm)
- where it threatens national security (this can also be contentious when used by governments merely to restrict access to information without a clear explanation of the national security issues as such)
- when it is defamatory (this is particularly relevant to accusations made in a public forum, e.g. in print).

The more public a forum you choose to express your view in, the more these restrictions apply. E.g. to make a false claim at a dinner party is not as serious as making it in print. Professions that deal in reporting and commenting, like journalism, have a greater obligation to do so accurately since what they do is related to the truth.

These are very common liberal restrictions to the right to freedom of speech originating in the work John Stuart Mill which has inspired most liberal political societies.

 

[Hullabaloo]

[ QUOTE ]
Freedom of speech is restricted in a variety of ways, the most common restrictions include:
- when it harms others
- when it incites others to violence
- when it offends others (this one is very contentious, e.g. see the famous Dutch cartoons case very recently, and will have to include strong arguments about why offence is a serious form of harm)
- where it threatens national security (this can also be contentious when used by governments merely to restrict access to information without a clear explanation of the national security issues as such)
- when it is defamatory (this is particularly relevant to accusations made in a public forum, e.g. in print).



[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you are trying to say that this article is defamatory, but it makes no specific accusations against anyone, just a few tongue in cheek remarks. Do you honestly think our freedom of speech would be best served by stopping David Mitchell expressing his views of dressage?

Or is there a threat to national security that I don't know about. Maybe the article was written in code and the author was really passing all our dressage secrets to the Germans

 

[Booboos]

With this particular post I was making a more general point.

With respect to the Mitchell article I have tried to explain what bothered me, but here it is again:
he seemed to make some serious accusations about the welfare of horses in dressage. If he meant them, then it is not an appropriate subject for a joke, if he did not mean them, they did not come accross as particularly humorous and I can see why BD felt they had to respond. I do think that accusing people of mistreating animals where these accusations are false is a serious matter and if the accusations are unfounded freedom of speech does not justify making them.

 

[CracklinRosie]

I don't imagine the dressage riders will hound him down. Maybe if we all took more time to read and understand we wouldn't misinterpret!

 

[Hullabaloo]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't imagine the dressage riders will hound him down. Maybe if we all took more time to read and understand we wouldn't misinterpret!

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't misinterpret - it was a joke in line with my other posts about animal rights activists. Maybe not much of a joke, but the best I could do that time of the morning

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that I don't take life seriously enough. I just thought it was an amusing article and all the outrage it has caused here seems to me to be way over the top.

 

[PaddyMonty]

'they hop from foot to foot, they walk on the spot, they stand still for a bit, quivering, before turning round in awkward timorous circles and walking diagonally across the arena.'

Thats probably the best description of dressage I've read

On initial read I did find the article slightly annoying. Howevre, I took the time (good excuse to avoid working) to read some other articles he'd written on sports. It soon became clear that no insult was really intended to dressage, he bashes all sport. Just his style.
If Clarkson had written the peice the reaction, I believe, would have been somewhat different as most people understand his style and dont take him or what he says too seriously

 

[skewbaldpony]

I'm thinking this cuts both ways. This is not what I would call outrage. I'm not sure it registers much beyond mildly peeved.

 

[teddybrowne]

My first reaction was outrage when I read this article. However, I agree with the frustration of 'judged' sports. And as an eventer the cut and dry of a rolled pole or time penalties is a far better 'sport' than the subjectivity of the dreassage phase. I can't be the only eventer who endures the dressage to enjoy the sj and xc! (and it's certainly not because I don't like the schooling)

On another note, I have also come across a great many horses who have not made it to the heights expected in dressage, because the incecsent training has driven them to extreme tension and one might term 'madness'. As already pointed out, not all tension is marked down accordingly in any case.

The author of this article may have been bullish in his remarks, and clearly set out to offend. However, looking deeper, as an outsider to equestrianism, he possible made some valid observations. Imagine what he might think if he observed the use of Rollkur?

 

[KenRehill]

Absolutely, and don't even start me on the medieval practice/torture of Rollkur! The columnist probably didn't have the first idea of the hornet's nest he could have opened with him comments about training and cruelty.

 

[Flibble]

My opinion on reading the original column is that the columnist is the sort of ill-informed tw@t that I have found it my unhappy experience to work with in a Corporate Office environment. Probably whilst in the pub he likes to regale his audience with his narrow minded misinformed opinions but is more interested in the sound of his own voice than any facts that may stray across his path.

 

[skewbaldpony]

So it might as well have been Clarkson, then?

 

[billy2]

Crumbs, David Mitchell must be thrilled by the controversy he's stirred up! Kind of justifies his existence, doesn't it? Except that I can't help thinking that he'd forgotten about the subject the minute he'd filed his copy...