Reply to: Pope Francis says freedom of speech has limits

[TykeMerc]

His show was effectively banned in the Republic of Ireland and he received death threats from the IRA in the 1970's.

Something that seems a world away from the present day Republic of Ireland.

Maybe Islam needs to move into the 21st century to?

It's not a world away, there's a lot of sectarian nastiness potential just under the surface there, but it's off the boil compared to 30-40 years ago and it had gone on for a few decades. Fact is the end to the widespread Irish nastiness took quite a while and a lot of bridge building.

Some of the extreme Islamic trouble makers have barely started knocking the bridges down let alone thought about how they could be rebuilt and the differences are vastly wider than just flavours of Christianity amongst people who broadly had the same culture and upbringing.
I doubt you can compare them and personally I'd love to see the problems end a damn sight sooner than 50+ years.

[Flashman]

Dave Allen's humour was much milder than Hebdo's, and more intelligent, putting him much closer to the balance point you mention IMO.

Also he was so likeable and funny that everyone tuned in, including those he aimed the jokes at. The common sense of those days seems a world away from today's extreme climate.

On one side you have an army of trolls who won't be happy until they have provoked World War III. Against them are an equally extreme army of PC offendetrons who will get you sacked for using the word "girl". Common sense ? We've never heard of it.

His show was effectively banned in the Republic of Ireland and he received death threats from the IRA in the 1970's.

Something that seems a world away from the present day Republic of Ireland.

Maybe Islam needs to move into the 21st century to?

[Paddy]

Freedom of spech is indivisible. Me, I find the idea of a man in his fifties marrying a 6 year old girl and consummating the union after she reaches her 9th birthday pretty nauseating, however I don't go around shooting those who worship this sicko ....

Even worse is the excuse as given in the Koran is that Mohammed can have all the women he wants in order to be satisfied so that he can concentrate on worshipping Allah

[SpontaneousOrder]

I think he's wrong. Speaking is just that and nothing more.

Unless that speaking constitutes conspiracy to do something bad.
I guess its the difference between saying hurtful things that might anger other people to act violently, and actually telling people they should do violent things.

The first is free speech - the later *might* be considered conspiracy to do badness, depending on the context etc.

[unixman]

Dave Allen pioneered the satirisation of religion quite brilliantly whilst respecting each individuals right to believe in whatever god they believed.

Dave Allen's humour was much milder than Hebdo's, and more intelligent, putting him much closer to the balance point you mention IMO.

Also he was so likeable and funny that everyone tuned in, including those he aimed the jokes at. The common sense of those days seems a world away from today's extreme climate.

On one side you have an army of trolls who won't be happy until they have provoked World War III. Against them are an equally extreme army of PC offendetrons who will get you sacked for using the word "girl". Common sense ? We've never heard of it.

[AtW]

Larry Flint.

[DodgyAgent]

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.

Which is exactly what the whole "fight" is all about. Dave Allen lampooned the Catholic church and those in power within it. Because catholicism exists within the free world there was little the pope and his cabal of followers could do about it. Once the veil of unquestioned authority was lifted by the lakes of Allen people were no longer afraid to question it. Look what has happened since with the arrests of large numbers of priests.

Exactly the same levels of control are exacted by leaders in politics, business, healthcare you name it. These institutions thanks to the media and comedy can no longer imprison people within their ideology.
islam and its "prophets/leaders are going to have to live by the same laws as the rest of us, even if the liberal left think we should patronise them by allowing them to live by different rules.

[original PM]

Freedom of spech is indivisible. Me, I find the idea of a man in his fifties marrying a 6 year old girl and consummating the union after she reaches her 9th birthday pretty nauseating, however I don't go around shooting those who worship this sicko ....

You are not supposed to take this literally it's just a parable...unless it tells you to kill someone then you can take it literally or if you want give it a completely different interpretation - does not matter as long as you can justify it by saying he told you to do it

fookin loons...

[AtW]

People can believe whatever the hell they want, however they got no right to force their views on others, nevermind murdering for alternative views!

[pjclarke]

Freedom of spech is indivisible. Me, I find the idea of a man in his fifties marrying a 6 year old girl and consummating the union after she reaches her 9th birthday pretty nauseating, however I don't go around shooting those who worship this sicko ....

[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)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.