But anyway, somebody one said, "The right to freedom of speech does not extend to shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater." In other words, if some causes damage (or incites violence) through their speech they can be held accountable for it.
Kasper wrote:Am I to understand then, that you believe free speech should indeed be limited?
In regard to Theo van Gogh, (the dutch filmmaker / columnist), should he have been silenced to protect himself from harm? Since his murder various mosques and consequently churches have been lighted, this would all not have happened if he would have been silenced.
As I said, offending someone is not a crime. People get offended all the time, especially irrationals. It's only when speech causes harm (and I don't mean hurts people's feelings) that limits become appropriate.
Kasper wrote:Would you consider a movie that severely critizises someone's honest faith a speech which causes harm?
In the case of Van Gogh, it clearly has.
Should his right to free speech therefore have been limited (as a matter of self-protection)?
I disagree, the movie was not adequate provocation for his murder.
Whatever happened to "freedom or death"?
Kasper wrote:Well, the movie dealt with women being abused by muslim men. Certainly this movie had the effect or intention of putting Islam in a bad light. "Implied" can mean a lot, in a sense it certainly incited 'discontent' with Islam.
Kasper wrote:The murderer (and possible accomplices) found it adequate.
Kasper wrote:Is free speech a pillar or a product of western society?
Kasper wrote:I suppose that is indeed the question. It's a great principle, 'give me liberty or give me death!'. Personally, if confronted with the option, I would choose life.
But who knows, when we look at Europe who ban Church sponsered fastings and preachings against homo-sexual lifestyles,
For centuries we, us great old westerners, have boasted the right to free speech, to religion, political persuasion! But the great old west is slowly being inhabited by those who have a very different opinion than we do: those who truly believe, something we have lost about 400-500 years. Faith that God is the almighty, and truly believe it, not just sing it in the same old songs on Sunday before morning tea and some tea and biscuits in the afternoon.
How does a rational society deal with a growing number of irrational believers?
Especially when those believers are being attacked by the rationalists with their free speech?
When a rationalist atheist uses this right to bluntly attack the faith of the irrational, whose entire existence is based upon their religious believes, should this be allowed? At what point do the irrational need protection? Do they need protection at all?
Let us take into account that such attacks can lead to outburst of violence against the free-speaker, for when a god is truly held to be sacred, he is not to be insulted or slighted. And to die for the honour of god, is true honour and eternal salvation.
Kasper wrote:In regard to Theo van Gogh, (the dutch filmmaker / columnist), should he have been silenced to protect himself from harm? Since his murder various mosques and consequently churches have been lighted, this would all not have happened if he would have been silenced.
I am not exerting my own opinion here, I'm only posing the question. Should free speech be limited to prevent violence?
I do not know exactly what the situation was like with regards to Gogh. Maybe it was not clear that there was so much danger.
The Dutch problem goes much deeper though. A state with such an attitude as Holland's (i.e. 'we don't care, do what you like') on immigration and religion is probably heading for disaster anyway.
wikipedia wrote:In an interview with the daily paper Trouw (Saturday 25 July 2003), she said of the prophet Mohammed: "Measured by our western standards, he is a perverse man. A tyrant". This referred to the fact that Mohammed married a nine-year-old girl. Several Islamic organisations and individual Muslims filed charges for discrimination. However, Hirsi Ali was not prosecuted. According to the prosecutor her criticism "does not contain any conclusions with regard to Muslims, and the worthiness of them as a group is not denied."
Kasper wrote:It seems we are stuck.
For centuries we, us great old westerners, have boasted the right to free speech, to religion, political persuasion! But the great old west is slowly being inhabited by those who have a very different opinion than we do: those who truly believe, something we have lost about 400-500 years. Faith that God is the almighty, and truly believe it, not just sing it in the same old songs on Sunday before morning tea and some tea and biscuits in the afternoon.
The irrational believers, that cannot be persuaded, cannot even be debated, because to debate a god is a sin in itself.
Rationalism fears irrationalism far more than vice versa. True irrationalism, after all, exists only in the moment, where as rationalist knows the past and fears the future.
How does a rational society deal with a growing number of irrational believers? Especially when those believers are being attacked by the rationalists with their free speech?
When a rationalist atheist uses this right to bluntly attack the faith of the irrational, whose entire existence is based upon their religious believes, should this be allowed? At what point do the irrational need protection? Do they need protection at all?
Let us take into account that such attacks can lead to outburst of violence against the free-speaker, for when a god is truly held to be sacred, he is not to be insulted or slighted. And to die for the honour of god, is true honour and eternal salvation.
Can we maintain free speech, when it leads to violence and civil disturbance? What is the purpose of free speech? Is freedom more important than order? Freedom or security?
Can irrationalism be dealt with by a rational state (habeas corpus and the rest)?
Kasper wrote:Sorry Rhuiden, but the question is so far beside the point that if you wish to discuss this please start a new thread.
Kasper wrote:PS. I am not interested in a discussion about proving God and scientific evidence of His existence. I am trying to have a discussion on whether freedom must be maintained when it leads to chaos and disorder.
Rhuiden wrote: I also am not trying to turn the discussion into a debate about the existence of God. My concern was that you were lumping all religious people together. If you were meaning religious people to be the murdering muslim extremist, then I understand your reference.
Kasper wrote:No, I do not think all religious people are wholly irrational.
Kasper wrote:When a rationalist atheist uses this right to bluntly attack the faith of the irrational, whose entire existence is based upon their religious believes, should this be allowed? At what point do the irrational need protection?
Democritus wrote: the film itself did not necessitate the response of murder. There were other ways to respond. So, I don't agree that the film caused the murder.
Controversial or unpopular speech is precisely the kind of speech that needs protecting.
Democritus wrote:
We should be conscious of the metaphor being used here... the film only "attacked" metaphorically. Nobody was "injured" by the film. A film is not an act of violence.
Bert wrote:The limit to free speech I was refering to is 'slander'.
There are many things that should not be said but no law can be made against it. Eg; gossip.
However, no one should be able to slander under the guise of free speech.
Refering to someone using false derogatory terms false under the same category.
Calling Muslims 'capellam pedicatores' (I'm relying on Kasper's translation) is not in someone's freedom of speech.
Kasper wrote:
Bert, why can't a law be made against it? The purpose of law is afterall to create order in a state. When order is being threatened by free speech, it would be an imperative to the legislature to make laws limiting free speech in order to preserve the order of a state.
A state's (economical) existence depends on its' internal order. Is it not a facet of any living creature to choose life above anything else, even such freedom?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests