Pope Francis says freedom of speech has limits

[AtW]

IMO insulting a billion people for no reason is pretty moronic. We have enough hate, why create more?

They were printing their magazine in FRANCE, not dropping it off airplanes all around the world. They had every right to do so in FRANCE and not get killed for it. Almost nobody cared about that, but now 5 mln copies got sold in FRANCE.

[DodgyAgent]

Freedom of speech is an immutable right. But just because something is legal doesn't always mean you should do it. I think that is the point the pope was trying to make.

IMO insulting a billion people for no reason is pretty moronic. We have enough hate, why create more?

One man's insult is another mans joke.

[VectraMan]

They were printing their magazine in FRANCE, not dropping it off airplanes all around the world. They had every right to do so in FRANCE and not get killed for it. Almost nobody cared about that, but now 5 mln copies got sold in FRANCE.

Before this they'd sell about 50,000 copies, and were struggling so probably would have gone bust sooner or later. Now the whole world* is looking at their cartoons. Good work terrorists.


*Well not the BBC or Sky News where they've been censored.

[scooterscot]

IMO insulting a billion people for no reason is pretty moronic.

Are you saying the Duke of Edinburgh is a moron?

The Duke of Edinburgh has defended the infamous “slitty-eyed” gaffe he made during a trip to China 25 years ago.

[TykeMerc]

One man's insult is another mans joke.

Conversely one man's joke can be another man's incitement to extreme violence, murder or war.

There's an impossible moral conundrum here, when does freedom of speech become freedom to insult, offend, verbally attack or abuse?
Does one argue that it's a freedom of speech issue to be racist, incite panic, riot or mass violence?

Many of us would argue that it's common sense to know when it's gone too far and crossed the line, but that's not true as it's not only opinion, but cultural and religious differences that become relevant.

There is no right answer to this one, just a lot of opinions.

[unixman]

One man's insult is another mans joke.

We all have something we would rather not have insulted, it is only human.

@AtW - I never referred to Charlie Hebdo. Not sure why you are capitalizing France.

[AtW]

@AtW - I never referred to Charlie Hebdo. Not sure why you are capitalizing France.

Because that 1 bln people you've referred do not live in FRANCE where Charlie Hebdo was exercising his right to free speech. These materials were not even distributed in their own countries where they are free to have whatever barbaric laws their religion justifies.

[DodgyAgent]

Conversely one man's joke can be another man's incitement to extreme violence, murder or war.

There's an impossible moral conundrum here, when does freedom of speech become freedom to insult, offend, verbally attack or abuse?
Does one argue that it's a freedom of speech issue to be racist, incite panic, riot or mass violence?

Many of us would argue that it's common sense to know when it's gone too far and crossed the line, but that's not true as it's not only opinion, but cultural and religious differences that become relevant.

There is no right answer to this one, just a lot of opinions.

The balance between satire and insulting behaviour is about right in this country despite the weasel opinions of the liberal left. Dave Allen pioneered the satirisation of religion quite brilliantly whilst respecting each individuals right to believe in whatever god they believed. By satirising religion and other "established institutions" we prevent people from hijacking and exploiting their faith or their institution to bring about control and totalitarianism.

The EU tried to make it an offence for anyone within to criticise it and it failed. Thank god! people in positions of responsibility and power should be constantly challenged. That includes political as well as religious leaders and their institutions. lampooning religion I am afraid goes with the territory of living in an advanced civilised society such as our own. Satire is the most effective way of dealing with authoritarian behaviour. The pope may not like it but he and his church has to live with it. The rest can live with it too.

[TykeMerc]

Dodgy, while I agree and yes Dave Allen was superb at his satirical prods at religions it's not the likes of us that are inclined to get really grumpy about a comment or cartoon.

We are part of a culture that views free speech as a right and a duty, but as we're all well aware there are "cultures" that don't value it, regard those that exercise free speech as a target and have such a minimal regard for human life and well being that violent response is automatic. Some of those groups may even regard a violent response as a religious duty.

It's a damn shame the population of the world is predominantly ignorant, ill educated, prone to listening to nutters and easily stirred to violence, but it's a reality that only the naive ignore.

[original PM]

Ok lets have it this way

1) "I think anyone who believes in any form of deity is a bit nuts" - that is my personal opinion and I have every right to expect to be able to say that and not fear physical violence

2) "I think anyone who believes in any form of deity is a bit nuts and therefore we should rise up and wipe them from our lands" - this is not acceptable as even though it is my personal opinion I am now trying to get others to agree with me and form together to perform an act of violence.

1) Represents what the French magazine did - which the Muslims found offensive (or rather the Muslim community has made no effort other than words to make out this was not a Muslim attack and nor are they actively trying to weed out the hate recruiters and brain washers that hang around their places of worship)
2) Represents what Abu Hamza was doing - which the Muslims found acceptable (or accepted in their lack of action against him as he was preaching it in the Muslim name)