Double standards on freedom of speech

[jesus_wept]

Sometimes. My grandfather was Jewish (his mother and father were Jewish at least) and I'm against the laws too, as I think he would've been because he believed in freedom of speech as well.

[robvalue]

I'm genuinely and repetitively shocked. I hope there are plans to abolish this travesty. I don't know how France, or any other country that has such laws, can defend their own right to criticise what they like while not allowing it themselves.

Shame on you, Europe. I count myself lucky I'm in England then. I'd never heard of any of this until today. (We get the picture rob shut the fuck up now.)

[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.

[Dystopia]

Double standards? No, censorship is the suppression of free speech that can be considered objectionable, forbidding free hate speech is not censorship. Perhaps because denying the holocaust is mostly used in a context of anti-Semitism speech for hating jews as the evil in the world and allowing it before led to tragedies, specially France, the most affected country by the two wars - It already almost led to the extinction of an entire "race"/people. And considering the evidence for the holocaust, I don't see the problem. Racist speech and fascist speech is also illegal, and it will remain so

[Cato]

Personally, I am completely oblivious to the childish behaviour of the kind of morons that draw and publish such cartoons, and our Prophet (pbuh) is certainly far above this nonsense.

Satire, in any form, is not childish. Throwing a temper tantrum because you don't agree with what's being said is. Satire is extremely effective at exposing idiocy and unethical behavior in all walks of life.

Temper tantrums in response isn't just for so called radicals. Saudi Arabia today carried out the first 50 lashes of Raef Badawi; the same Saudi Arabia that some very recently pointed to as an example of peaceful muslims because they released a statement condemning the recent murders in Paris.

In September, a Saudi court upheld a sentence of 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes for Badawi, and he is expected to have 20 weekly whipping sessions until his punishment is complete.

Badawi is the co-founder of the Saudi Liberal Network along with women’s rights campaigner Suad al-Shammari, who was arrested last October and also accused of “insulting Islam.”

http://newsweekpakistan.com/saudi-blogge...ing-islam/

Seems to me there is a very significant portion of the Muslim World that ins't being taught that the prophet is above reproach.

[robvalue]

Surely that (criticism/denial of the holocaust) would be down to an examination of the context and audience in which the comments are made? I don't see how entire subjects can just be "off limits" completely without affecting freedom of expression. Sure, if it's being used in an obviously hateful and attacking way, then that's not acceptable.

I feel that the meaning behind things is way more important than the words or medium used.

I mean, I don't know how far this "ban" goes, to what extent you are allowed some privacy to discuss things. Or whether they will bust into your home to raid you after planting a microphone. It's all new to me and I'm scared.

[Dystopia]

Robvalue, is there a known the context in which denying - I don't mean discussing, rather denying that it happened - The holocaust is not used to justify far right nationalism, anti-semitism and racism? Perhaps you're not jew so you don't see the problem, but if you were and the law didn't protect you from people saying something that can be deeply offensive you'd be angry (like mocking or questioning and event with clear evidence that killed a part of your ethnicity and ancestors and using it to promote racism

On the other hand, where are jews bombing places? Anti-semitism is anti-race, not religion, there are many jewish atheists who still follow traditions, I know a few. Islamophobia is against religion pure and simple

[robvalue]

How about I jokingly say to my friend, "the holocaust didn't happen!" Should I be arrested?

Or even if I have reason to believe it really didn't happen, and discuss the reasons why. Should I get it up the arse?

I don't think it follows that this subject can only be discussed as part of a hate campaign.

[Dystopia]

How about I jokingly say to my friend, "the holocaust didn't happen!" Should I be arrested?

Or even if I have reason to believe it really didn't happen, and discuss the reasons why. Should I get it up the arse?

I don't think it follows that this subject can only be discussed as part of a hate campaign.

I doubt that you'll really get arrested just for a joke, it's more if you publicly say it in a speech with seriousness. Can anyone from France or not from France show me that law? Sometimes a badly interpreted word can change the whole meaning of the law... Is it illegal to criticize Islam too?

[Cato]

BTW, the story about that trial was in 2009. Any idea what the result was?

Acquitted.

http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/3740...ts-world5/

Short blurb, third story down.