Double standards on freedom of speech

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Satire is a cornerstone of democracy because it is the epitome of free speech. Being able to reflect on something and criticise it prevents it from becomming a taboo, and prevents it from being taken too seriously.

Being able to satirise religion, specifically religious prophets and religious leaders, reveals the humanity behind those subjects because it elucidates a counter-discourse; that not everyone believes in their messages or the writings that go hand in hand.

I agree with everyone here about the absurdity of not being able to question the holocaust, because those that do are often frauds and charlatans who are easily exposed when they open their mouths. Indeed, that is the very point of free speech - To reveal which discourses are generally accepted or indeed evidenced, and which are not.

But the key issue is this; nothing is beyond attack and critique. If you criticise someone's race, you're an idiot becuase there's nothing anyone can do about their race. Equally their sexuality, their eye colour (etc).

Religious beliefs are just that; beliefs. They are things that someone has, somewhere down the line, either chosen to believe or been forced into believing. In this respect they are no different to any other belief that one can have, on politics, on environmentalism, on welfare, whatever. Would you ever want to live in a country where it was illegal to talk about the political élite? Would you ever want to live in a country where it was illegal to talk about environmental issues?

Why would anyone want to thus live in a country where it was illegal to discuss, critique and ultimately criticise religion? I'm sure a lot of theists would want to live in a country where it was illegal to attack their religion whilst others were fair game, but that would be a double standard.

Consider this if you will. When someone draws a picture of Mohammed, and Muslims get all angry, where does the blame lie? Does it lie with the people drawing a cartoon, even if they know it was going to get an angry reaction? Or does it lie with the people who are getting angry, whose faith in their prophet clearly isn't as strong as they think it is if they get uppity about someone doing something as simple as drawing a picture? As a secularist, an egalitarian, and a defender of free speech, it's pretty obvious to me. What about you, OP?

You can call these people 'morons' if you want, but in the end what damage was done by these cartoons? You're clearly not bothered by them. If more people weren't bothered, then this wouldn't be an issue. Muslims would be saying "oh those silly French secularists, drawing those cartoons", and we would all have a laugh about it. But the fact that people want to elevate this topic to the status of taboo, banning people from even talking about it unless it's in a way they want people to talk about it, makes these people the antithesis of morons. It makes them people who weren't afraid to stand up for the rights afforded to them by a free-thinking liberal country, a country that gives those that wished them harm the same rights and freedoms. The people who attacked them could have done so with words; they chose instead to act with violence.

I think the cartoonists won.