Freedom of speech is not absolute and unlimited; it is subject to some legal and moral restraints. Incitement to murder, conspiracy to commit crimes, untruths designed to harm people (i.e. libel), breach of court orders: these are some of the main constraints on free speech. Publications which remain within those limits are indeed exercising free speech responsibly. But ideas are a free-for-all. Anyone can contradict a scientific theorem, a legal judgment, a political manifesto, or a religious doctrine as they please. Religious notions like faith and 'holy' texts are fair game for comment, criticism, satire, ridicule, and disrespect just as much as any other notions. If the freedoms our civilisation has established are to be preserved, they must be exercised frequently and vigorously; otherwise they will wither and atrophy. Publishing material which others find offensive is highly responsible, and indeed essential. Thus I agree with you that freedom of speech should be exercised responsibly - as it was by Charlie Hebdo. Rather surprisingly, David Cameron publicly agreed recently that others' offence is no reason for censorship.
Exactly, and a point which does not seem to be emphasised enough is that in the great majority of cases, people have a choice as to whether to read or view material that they may find offensive. Nobody has to read Charlie Hebdo if they do not want to.
In the news this week as well a survey was carried out about who had doubts about their religion. Apparently Muslims have least doubts. Now call me a cynic, but especially over the last few years if the religion I was following was OK with all of the apparent bloodshed, what does it say about Muslim attitudes to the extremes that "Muslim mild" say they don't support..
not bad, not bad.:smile: i do have a wee true story relating to 9/11. and a Muslim mate. will tell it later that's the kids back.
Well, we've debated about the need for Islam to redefine itself and to change to the modern World and for Islamic leadership. here's an interesting speech by the Egyptian President: Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi said Thursday that Muslims need to adapt their religious discourse to the present and eliminate elements of their rhetoric that could foster violence. “Islam is a tolerant religion, but this wasn’t always clear to the rest of the world during the last 20 or 30 years,” Sisi said during a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “The terrible terrorist attacks and this terrible image of Muslims led us to think that we must stop and think and change the religious discourse and remove from it things that have led to violence and extremism.” He's also previously said similar things to Muslim clerics: Speaking to a group of Muslim clerics at al-Azhar University in Cairo earlier this month, Sisi struck a similar tone, saying Islam needed a “religious revolution” and calling on clerics to take the lead. Egyptian President Sisi: Muslims Need To Reform Their Religious Discourse
mmm,, so you think " mocking " each other is a " civilised " way to behave,,,, I would think that is absurd,, what kind of world do you want to live in ?? what kind of people are you ??
I have never read Charlie Hebdo and was unaware of its existence until the shootings but i get the impression that the magazine mocks politicians and religions amongst other things. In my opinion these are legitimate targets to be mocked . I`m going to generalise as I accept that there may be some good people in politics or religion but any person or group that for example feels that half the population of the planet are second class citizens based on what sex they are deserves to be mocked at the very least. Are you suggesting we should not make scathing or mocking comments about Catholic priests and young boys or MPs and expense claims etc ? Muslim men killed some journalists, police and shoppers because they were upset about a cartoon, that is uncivilised and not the kind of world I want to live in.
Yes, I agree, but if you google "hebdo islam cartoons", dozens come up. Surely there comes a point when freedom of speech becomes intimidating, bullying, disrespectful etc. we should all be able to laugh at ourselves but when ridicule becomes continual it can be perceived as malicious.
Do you believe that a publication with a normal circulation of 60K per week is successfully able to intimidate or bully a population of 2 billion ... most of whom will never get the chance to be directly (or even indirectly) "oppressed" by it?
I agree Gimlet. In no way am I a right winger, but I agree with the principle of rights balanced with responsibilities. We must condemn the murderers and encourage equality within the Muslim faith. As mentioned above, if it were the one cartoon, the fine, but dozens? People are wondering why there was a reaction, however vile, over the top it may be? Are we really surprised? You say we don't kill people, but we do kill people. 500,000 Iraqis dead due to Bush and Blair - elected by us. Like it or not, we are responsible.
For many years, I was being intimidated and bullied by The Morning Star, a left wing publication that was vehemently opposed to my capitalist outlook and way of life. I was able to cope, though. By the way, is The Morning Star still being printed? I can't remember the last time I saw it at a newsagents.
I have no idea Loz, but I do know that when I watch the news and see images of Palestinians, many have Mobile phones. Doesn't take much for an image to get around. Having said that I doubt any Moslems there would feel bullied or intimidated, they would feel angry. Those in France are a different matter. I think it always helps to put yourself in the other persons shoes and try and see it from their viewpoint. You don't have to go too far back to find the name David Copeland, whose intolerance of gay people and immigrants led him to bomb and kill people in London in 1999.
Not at all. You are obviously rather poorly educated. The west has a long history of political and religious satire - mocking if you like. From the days of the 18th century Enlightenment onwards great writers such as Voltaire and Swift have used their pens to bring about change by holding up to ridicule the foibles of human nature. It's called being enlightened rather than living in the dark ages when fear and suspicious ruled. Better that than seeking to bring about change at the end of a gun eh? Even something as innocent as Fawlty Towers mocks idiocy. Would you deny us that enjoyment? You come over as some sort of ludicrous Puritan, Nazi or Fundamentalist zealot. Is that the sort of world you want to live in rather than one in which people can take a joke and have a laugh. You take life much too seriously.
