(April 4, 2009 at 6:39 pm)padraic Wrote: Imo The professor was in the right. The school was wrong in censoring unpopular idea expressed in a [deliberately?] provocative way. In my country a university does not have the right to censor the works of its academics.
Imo the jury missed the bloody point. At the core of freedom of speech is the right of dissent,even at the risk of offending.
I have big problems with anti vilification laws . My unease was recently confirmed by the UN resolution forbidding criticism of Islam. Austria puts Holocaust deniers in prison. Turkey does the same to anyone who publicly mentions the Armenian Massacre.
That I am offended by the views of another is not enough to silence them.It is arguably enough when a view is likely to incite hatred and violence. I have no idea how to make that definition.
"No one has the right not to be offended" (John Cleese)
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComment...obbs,page7
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Massacre
I fail to see how the jury got it wrong. Its decision seems the right one i.e wrongful termination.
A man is born to a virgin mother, lives, dies, comes alive again and then disappears into the clouds to become his Dad. How likely is that?
