Sir – I sometimes feel uncomfortable with the targets satire chooses, and methods it employs, but can’t agree with Mr Emlyn-Jones (Letters, February 26).
I certainly don’t believe the law should protect people from ridicule or offence. It is necessary in a healthy society that people are free to confront, and offend.
Recently Stephen Fry made some challenging remarks, asking why God created a world in which such things as bone cancer in children happen. He was blunt about what he thought of such a God, calling him “capricious, mean-minded, stupid”. In an interview Rowan Williams, a patently intelligent and decent man, responded with an argument that amounted to – it’s mysterious. He was waffling. Such feeble responses all too often go unchallenged, and are accorded far too much respect.
A healthy society entails responsibility as well as the freedom to act. But if satire involves me, or anyone, feeling uncomfortable or offended because it sometimes has a scattergun effect, so be it.
Paul Surman, Horspath
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here