Free speech does not protect you from opposing religion

[Lexical]

So I read this article and it discussed how many government officials including Obama are saying that free speech " has become less defined and less dependable for those espousing controversial social, political or religious views." This nonsense is being spewed in light of recent events revolving around that stupid YouTube video that caused mass riots in several Muslim nations.

First, I am pretty sure we have enough intelligence to say that the riots were planned by Muslim extremists and terrorists as an anniversary for 9/11 who then used the year old film as a scapegoat and justification for killing a U.S ambassador. Second, why is it only focused on Religion? Why can any religious nut bash homosexuals or anyone else not of their religion, but if you bash their religion all of a sudden you are in the wrong? None of this shit makes sense. Heck, I might even be committing treason for posting such outrage at this ludicrous.

'U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon warned that “when some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others’ values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected.”' Okay so then we definitely need to start tearing pages out of the bible right? Most of Leviticus definitely needs to go as well as many parts of the Koran that spout hatred and anger towards "infidels." But now we are faced with the catch 22 where then we are not being tolerant of their intolerance.

The entire point of freedom of speech is so we can address each other and speak our minds and differing stances on subject matters that might be . This inevitably will piss someone off. Cartoons world wide can not depict the prophet Muhammed in any way, shape or form because that is offensive. What is even worse is that we are being tolerant to the death threats that extremists respond with to said depiction of Muhammed. Which of these incite more fear and illustrate the most hatred? Seriously, fuck this PC bullshit.

[Lexical]

What if I get a large group of zealot atheists together and we all decide that any talk/mention of G-d is a deemed insufferably outrageous/demeaning towards our beliefs and thus we will respond with force? Will that be protected? Fuck no! Only shows you how stupidly biased this bullshit is becoming.

[Reiker000]

Freedom of speech isn't going anywhere. The guys that made the stupid anti Islam video aren't being sent to work camps.

Freedom of speech however doesn't mean what most people think it does. You can say stupid things (in the right venue - it doesn't protect you from preaching Satanism in church) but that doesn't mean you're free from the repercussions of your actions. Culpability is losing its meaning a lot faster than freedom of speech is.

Also, other nations have differing culture and values than America does, and the world is becoming more and more globally connected.

[Lexical]

Originally Posted by Reiker000 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Freedom of speech isn't going anywhere.

Sadly it is mate. There has been many recent legislature as the article discusses that has been passed that limit the use of free speech.

Originally Posted by Reiker000 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Freedom of speech however doesn't mean what most people think it does. You can say stupid things (in the right venue - it doesn't protect you from preaching Satanism in church) but that doesn't mean you're free from the repercussions of your actions. Culpability is losing its meaning a lot faster than freedom of speech is.

You are right and wrong. I do understand that freedom of speech doesn't mean I can go into a church service and start banging pots and pans and spout satanic dogma since that disrupts the others from their freedom of speech. However, in an open forum like Youtube or on the internet in most cases, posting an anti-religious video is a perfect example of free speech and is nowhere the same instance as described above. Just because a group finds something offensive is not enough justification to censor the thing in question. The depiction of Muhammed is a perfect example. If I draw a picture and say this is Muhammed and post it on this forums, then I should be protected by freedom of speech. It does not disrupts theirs and is just silly in general.

Originally Posted by Reiker000 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Also, other nations have differing culture and values than America does, and the world is becoming more and more globally connected.

I also understand that there are differing cultures and values in the world, but with the world becoming more and more globally connected, the freedom of speech is something that needs to be protected and any acts that seek to circumvent the whole thing should be met with strong resistance. The internet is an open global forum and should be kept as such. When blatant censorship comes in the guise of tolerance, then you have a big problem. Though it may be childish, the best response to such a stance is "sorry you got butthurt." I am not saying that hateful speech should be protected everywhere, but if they congregate to themselves and are not plotting anything that might disrupt/harm others then it should be protected. If there is an open forum and they post on it, then that is also fine as the forum was meant to be open and with open forums you have the dredge of society come out. I might not agree with what they are saying, but I do believe they should be protected in such cases.

What I don't get is how we should "tolerate" other cultures (and by other cultures I mean extremists) who spout nothing but hate and threaten others with violence or respond with violence as that directly tries to censor others' free speech. That isn't being tolerant, that is being stupid.

[Raavak]

Originally Posted by Oscar Wilde

I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.

Freedom of speech means protecting unpopular speech. Popular speech doesn't require any protection.

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by Raavak [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Freedom of speech means protecting unpopular speech. Popular speech doesn't require any protection.

[Orruar]

The only way to have any kind of logical consistency when it comes to free speech is when it is coupled with property rights. The reason you can't go into a church and start screaming whatever you want is because the owner of the church doesn't permit it. If the owner of the church permits it, it is perfectly fine.

[mgellan]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The only way to have any kind of logical consistency when it comes to free speech is when it is coupled with property rights. The reason you can't go into a church and start screaming whatever you want is because the owner of the church doesn't permit it. If the owner of the church permits it, it is perfectly fine.

I tend to agree, what you do on public property is free speech even if it's utterly reprehensible (eg Wesboro Baptists) but you can't use free speech as an excuse to invade my property.

The only modifier is if you're inciting hate in ANY venue that may lead to actions (eg inciting moslems to attack non-moslems due to perceived slights) then you're committing an incitement to violence, which is recognized in law at least in the US (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio) and Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada) - if we had these laws in some other countries and enforced them we'd see a lot of this crap disappear.

Regards,
Mg

[bylbob]

Go talk shit to a police officer... . Free speech is an utopy.

[Frieza_Prexus]

I've always been nauseous of "incitement to violence" limitation. I just don't see a reasonable cutoff. Even Brandenburg's "imminence" limitation is twistable and suspect. Individuals are responsible for their actions, and it never sat well with me that we spread the culpability around.