Pope on Charlie Hebdo: There are limits to free expression

[Jingthing]

My respect for you Pope.

I love him.

(As a non-believer.)

[notmyself]

Of course not always. I can't threaten someone with violence or yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

How are they defined and what others are on the list?

[simple1]

No one is allow to violate my freedom of speech with violence. If he does, he is the criminal because violence in most cases is a crime.

But not always.

Of course not always. I can't threaten someone with violence or yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

But political and religious speech is rigorously protected.

The Pope got it wrong this time. There is no excuse for using violence against speech you don't like.

I am not a follower of any religion. However, it is fair to say the Pope clearly stated to journalists on the plane that “one cannot kill in the name of God." He went on to say "One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people's faith, one cannot make fun of faith," he said. "There is a limit. Every religion has its dignity. ... In freedom of expression there are limits."

From the above, whilst some may do so, personally I do not interpret the words as an excuse for using violence against free speech.

[Kitsune]

Muslims are forbidden the right to portrait, mock the prophet and obviously offense him.

Laics are not.

We and our ancestors fought very hard to have the right say what we like even blasphemy and to show a drawing of little man crying.

Francois is next on Charlie mocking list

[granuaile]

My respect for you Pope.

I love him.

(As a non-believer.)

As someone who is a member of the Episcopalian church but also embraces a lot of teachings from the Buddha while rejecting many Christian concepts such as Christ being God or the son of God and is essentially a universalist who reads the teachings of Buddha, the Bible, the Quran, even the Book of Mormon, for guidance - I too love him... In comparison to previous popes in my lifetime (too many decades now) he really walks the talk,....

[jpinx]

The Pope has entered into dangerous, but familiar legal waters. The parameters of freedom of speech have been worked out repeatedly through countless judicial proceedings, in many western countries over the years. In this time a central, core component of freedom of speech has been solidified and reinforced. Likewise, what constitutes the limits of free speech has been defined, and that litmus test is usually limited to screaming "fire" in a theater. If the demands of muslims create a theater in our western cultures, all is lost.

The Pope's comments were the same crap that people say in bars when they begin "No disrespect intended..." and invariably disrespect follows. The Pope supported freedom of speech on the one hand, then challenged countless years of freedom of speech regarding parameters by implying disrespecting a religious icon, that highly subjective act, is beyond freedom of speech.

What the Pope is doing is blatantly playing a card in support of the many ongoing steps to enact Anti Blasphemy Laws around the world. Remember, muslims don't respect other religions now, with anti-blasphemy laws, that muslims are urging, they will respect others less, and have legislative gunpowder for their arsenal against other faiths, and peoples.

There is a reason former Jesuit Malachi Martin warned us in his book "Jesuits" about the dangers of the Society of Jesus- Jesuits, and their ultra liberal liberation theology threat (just look to a number of Latin American leftist revolutions and the Rasputins behind the scenes). This book was written, I believe, in the 70s. Nearly everything Martin warns us of this Jesuit Pope is proving true. Expect a greater international slide to the left and a shocking accommodation of Islam.

True in some respects, but the muslims are only cpoying what USA did with their "war on terror". Reach out into legislations not under their control and eliminate (one way of another) the opposition that threatens their "way of life". The FBI/CIA/NSA have created more patsies than there have been genuine, real threats. Meantime the Pope is reinforcing the apparition of "free speech". As I have said many times, there are no rights to free speech unless the speaker first accepts responsibilty for the consequences of what he has to say.

Brother (I assume), you have valid points but IMO mix a few things up. In the US it is a disgusting truth that the US government is in one way or another closely married to nearly every single plot since WTC bombing, 1992 (search online- true!). These are facts in one way or another packaged as sting operations, preventive law enforcement. At a certain point you wonder where are the actual bad guys. I get it. I agree with you.

But inherent in your post is the cause and effect that muslims did A because someone else did B. This is plain false logic. It is this (kinda understandable) logic that disables the west from a real appreciation of the threat. Jihad was/is coming irrespective of who did "B." It is a false narrative that these acts are reactionary. Even if it were so that these acts are reactionary numbing ourselves over time to the absurdity that this is an excuse is insanity. These various acts throughout the world are totally connected; indeed, there are numerous places where jihad rages where the west has been absent for a very long time. Regardless, these are the only people on earth who do this because they are divinely authorized to. We should never grow comfortable thinking such inferior cultural norms are agreeable, explainable, or acceptable at any level.

That there are no rights to free speech unless the speaker accepts responsibility first for the consequences is the law of the jungle. Society provides both the framework and the protections for free speech. I agree some people should shut the F up and I can line up and name them, but they have a right to because free speech is designed not for popular speech, but for the ugliest speech the mouth can muster. In all the deliberations regarding the First Amendment it was to this, ugly, reprehensible speech, that they sought to protect. Society, for which being a member binds one to a social contract of sorts, does not anticipate a mouth being assassinated for first not acting responsibility for consequences. I simply differ with you. Their "way of life" ends where the social fabric of the host nation begins. Don't like it? They should get the F out.

I was not suggesting any causal tit-for-tat, only pointing out the equivalences. Besides -- 2 wrongs don't make a right -- as the death penalty proves every time -- it is merely revenge.

[robblok]

Scary the pope using the violence of the Muslims to protect his own religion against criticism. Basically the Christians also don't like freedom of speech when it conflicts with their beliefs. Religions should be able to take these things and deserve no more protection as ordinary people.

There is no basis that any of these religions are true.. why do they have more protection then books Grimm wrote ?

Disgusting trying to deflect criticism on religion. Bet we should all keep our mouth shut when the priests are doing bad things with young boys again.

No religion should be above this counter it with arguments.. not with violence.

The pope who i already did not hold high just dropped to the same level as the Muslims.

[Thai at Heart]

Scary the pope using the violence of the Muslims to protect his own religion against criticism. Basically the Christians also don't like freedom of speech when it conflicts with their beliefs. Religions should be able to take these things and deserve no more protection as ordinary people.

There is no basis that any of these religions are true.. why do they have more protection then books Grimm wrote ?

Disgusting trying to deflect criticism on religion. Bet we should all keep our mouth shut when the priests are doing bad things with young boys again.

No religion should be above this counter it with arguments.. not with violence.

The pope who i already did not hold high just dropped to the same level as the Muslims.

Hypocrites can't stand any criticism.

The truth hurts even if it humorous. This is the human necessity of satire. It lampoons in a comedic way the hypocrisy of ones beliefs or actions.

Note, the cartoons often held the actions or views of modern Muslims to account by lampooning Mohammed. It is not the Muslim faith the cartoons lampoon but the actions taken by so many apprently on behalf of their faith.

Anyway, the pope has in his day tried to hide paedophilia, and the world has its knickers in a twist and people are dying for a cartoon.

What's <deleted> up world.

[Lukecan]

There is huge amount of hypocricy going on in Europe, its a laughing stock really.

In France it is a crime to deny the so called " Armenian Genocide"

But if you mock the prophet who is worshipped by a billlion people, it is called freedom of speech.

What would happen if I as a turk, set up a magazine there and mocked the victims of the Armenian genocide?

What if I published a cartoon showing Hitler putting jews in an oven?

My magazine would be raided by the cops the same day, and I would probably face jail time. And mossad would probably assasinate me. Dont get me wrong, I am not a nazi, nor do I like Hitler, he is a sick person.

2 Turkish kids were jailed in Poland 2 years ago for doing nazi salute as a joke. Is this freedom of speech, they werent even serious.

So tell me what is the difference between mocking the prophet and the genocide victims? S.A.V Mohammed is considered very holy in Islam, whether you like it or not.If you mock him, you're taking a very big risk in a continent with millions of muslims.

When there is real freedom of speech in Europe, I might consider moving over there. But there is no freedom of speech, you cant say hail hitler, you cant mock genocide victims, you cant call gays pervarts. This is BS really. Until you're allowed to do these things there is no freedom of speech, freedom of speech only exists if you're mocking the muslim minority.

As I wrote on another thread, if other religions were granted the same dispensations in the Islamic world as Islam is in the West you might have a point, though I note that Turkey just allowed the first new Church opening in 90 years. They are not and as such the only equitable approach is when in Rome do as the Romans do, and if you don't like it don't let the door hit you on the backside on the way out. The genocides, including the Armenian one were real enough, the existence of Mohammad and his status as a prophet are (shall we charitably say) not proven. This is not intended to be provocative, but just to demonstrate how perceptions are culturally so different, like mixing oil and water.

In Turkey if you say that the Armenian Genocide took place, no one will touch you. Its not a crime. And regarding the existence of mohammed, its not what you think, its what they think about it. They beleive he existed, and love him very much. Youre playing with the feeligs of his supporters when you publish offensive cartoons about him. Edited January 17, 2015 by Lukecan

[Scott]

A number of off-topic posts and replies have been removed.

[arjunadawn]

The Pope has entered into dangerous, but familiar legal waters. The parameters of freedom of speech have been worked out repeatedly through countless judicial proceedings, in many western countries over the years. In this time a central, core component of freedom of speech has been solidified and reinforced. Likewise, what constitutes the limits of free speech has been defined, and that litmus test is usually limited to screaming "fire" in a theater. If the demands of muslims create a theater in our western cultures, all is lost.

The Pope's comments were the same crap that people say in bars when they begin "No disrespect intended..." and invariably disrespect follows. The Pope supported freedom of speech on the one hand, then challenged countless years of freedom of speech regarding parameters by implying disrespecting a religious icon, that highly subjective act, is beyond freedom of speech.

What the Pope is doing is blatantly playing a card in support of the many ongoing steps to enact Anti Blasphemy Laws around the world. Remember, muslims don't respect other religions now, with anti-blasphemy laws, that muslims are urging, they will respect others less, and have legislative gunpowder for their arsenal against other faiths, and peoples.

There is a reason former Jesuit Malachi Martin warned us in his book "Jesuits" about the dangers of the Society of Jesus- Jesuits, and their ultra liberal liberation theology threat (just look to a number of Latin American leftist revolutions and the Rasputins behind the scenes). This book was written, I believe, in the 70s. Nearly everything Martin warns us of this Jesuit Pope is proving true. Expect a greater international slide to the left and a shocking accommodation of Islam.

True in some respects, but the muslims are only cpoying what USA did with their "war on terror". Reach out into legislations not under their control and eliminate (one way of another) the opposition that threatens their "way of life". The FBI/CIA/NSA have created more patsies than there have been genuine, real threats. Meantime the Pope is reinforcing the apparition of "free speech". As I have said many times, there are no rights to free speech unless the speaker first accepts responsibilty for the consequences of what he has to say.

Brother (I assume), you have valid points but IMO mix a few things up. In the US it is a disgusting truth that the US government is in one way or another closely married to nearly every single plot since WTC bombing, 1992 (search online- true!). These are facts in one way or another packaged as sting operations, preventive law enforcement. At a certain point you wonder where are the actual bad guys. I get it. I agree with you.

But inherent in your post is the cause and effect that muslims did A because someone else did B. This is plain false logic. It is this (kinda understandable) logic that disables the west from a real appreciation of the threat. Jihad was/is coming irrespective of who did "B." It is a false narrative that these acts are reactionary. Even if it were so that these acts are reactionary numbing ourselves over time to the absurdity that this is an excuse is insanity. These various acts throughout the world are totally connected; indeed, there are numerous places where jihad rages where the west has been absent for a very long time. Regardless, these are the only people on earth who do this because they are divinely authorized to. We should never grow comfortable thinking such inferior cultural norms are agreeable, explainable, or acceptable at any level.

That there are no rights to free speech unless the speaker accepts responsibility first for the consequences is the law of the jungle. Society provides both the framework and the protections for free speech. I agree some people should shut the F up and I can line up and name them, but they have a right to because free speech is designed not for popular speech, but for the ugliest speech the mouth can muster. In all the deliberations regarding the First Amendment it was to this, ugly, reprehensible speech, that they sought to protect. Society, for which being a member binds one to a social contract of sorts, does not anticipate a mouth being assassinated for first not acting responsibility for consequences. I simply differ with you. Their "way of life" ends where the social fabric of the host nation begins. Don't like it? They should get the F out.

I was not suggesting any causal tit-for-tat, only pointing out the equivalences. Besides -- 2 wrongs don't make a right -- as the death penalty proves every time -- it is merely revenge.

I am sorry if I suggested you meant that "two wrongs make a right." I did not intend that. I was only addressing what i thought was a suggestion that the western actions beget islamic responses. Sorry if i misunderstood. Thank you.

[jpinx]

Brother (I assume), you have valid points but IMO mix a few things up. In the US it is a disgusting truth that the US government is in one way or another closely married to nearly every single plot since WTC bombing, 1992 (search online- true!). These are facts in one way or another packaged as sting operations, preventive law enforcement. At a certain point you wonder where are the actual bad guys. I get it. I agree with you.

But inherent in your post is the cause and effect that muslims did A because someone else did B. This is plain false logic. It is this (kinda understandable) logic that disables the west from a real appreciation of the threat. Jihad was/is coming irrespective of who did "B." It is a false narrative that these acts are reactionary. Even if it were so that these acts are reactionary numbing ourselves over time to the absurdity that this is an excuse is insanity. These various acts throughout the world are totally connected; indeed, there are numerous places where jihad rages where the west has been absent for a very long time. Regardless, these are the only people on earth who do this because they are divinely authorized to. We should never grow comfortable thinking such inferior cultural norms are agreeable, explainable, or acceptable at any level.

That there are no rights to free speech unless the speaker accepts responsibility first for the consequences is the law of the jungle. Society provides both the framework and the protections for free speech. I agree some people should shut the F up and I can line up and name them, but they have a right to because free speech is designed not for popular speech, but for the ugliest speech the mouth can muster. In all the deliberations regarding the First Amendment it was to this, ugly, reprehensible speech, that they sought to protect. Society, for which being a member binds one to a social contract of sorts, does not anticipate a mouth being assassinated for first not acting responsibility for consequences. I simply differ with you. Their "way of life" ends where the social fabric of the host nation begins. Don't like it? They should get the F out.

I was not suggesting any causal tit-for-tat, only pointing out the equivalences. Besides -- 2 wrongs don't make a right -- as the death penalty proves every time -- it is merely revenge.

I am sorry if I suggested you meant that "two wrongs make a right." I did not intend that. I was only addressing what i thought was a suggestion that the western actions beget islamic responses. Sorry if i misunderstood. Thank you.

No offence taken

I'll pick up a some points from your post.... You said:_

"....these are the only people on earth who do this because they are divinely authorized to....."

Given that Islam is about 500 years younger than Christianity, it'd pay to look at what Christianity was doing 500 Years ago.

"....That there are no rights to free speech unless the speaker accepts responsibility first for the consequences is the law of the jungle......"

The measure of a culture is best taken by looking at how civilised are the poorest people in it. Basically you measure from the bottom up

The "Roman Civilisation" was only civilised because they didn't allow any riff-raff in, and used slaves and mercenaries. Their religion changed and the empire fell. One can't help but wonder if there is a more significant connection between these events than has been revealed by the largely christian historians.

Your further comments on free speech are very USA-centric (no criticism ) Most regimes actually restrict speech - especially hate speech - in many ways, starting with simple libel but going all the way up to anti-terrorism.

Remember that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. For as long as opposing views are not resolved by negotiation the hot-heads on both sides will have their way.

[arjunadawn]

I'll pick up a some points from your post.... You said:_

"....these are the only people on earth who do this because they are divinely authorized to....."

Given that Islam is about 500 years younger than Christianity, it'd pay to look at what Christianity was doing 500 Years ago.

"....That there are no rights to free speech unless the speaker accepts responsibility first for the consequences is the law of the jungle......"

The measure of a culture is best taken by looking at how civilised are the poorest people in it. Basically you measure from the bottom up

The "Roman Civilisation" was only civilised because they didn't allow any riff-raff in, and used slaves and mercenaries. Their religion changed and the empire fell. One can't help but wonder if there is a more significant connection between these events than has been revealed by the largely christian historians.

Your further comments on free speech are very USA-centric (no criticism ) Most regimes actually restrict speech - especially hate speech - in many ways, starting with simple libel but going all the way up to anti-terrorism.

Remember that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. For as long as opposing views are not resolved by negotiation the hot-heads on both sides will have their way.

1. We don't live 500 years ago; we live now! Finding qualifying similar horrors from history does not change the fact that I am living in terrible times and do not want to live in terrible times. Knowing christians, jews, or buddhists did this or that and when, does not change my perspective nor mitigate my conclusions. I do not believe it even provides context. The point is, we do not want to find precedent; we want it to stop and history does not provide a useful clue how to do this.

2. I am uncertain that what constitutes a civilized people can be placed in one sentence, the one you have- but it is likely very close to right.

3. I am US born and raised but I am a Patrick Henry John Locke kinda guy. I believe in limits of speech in very limited circumstances, igniting strife and violence would constitute a grey area for limiting speech for sure. But this begs the question. You cannot have the parameters of civil society changed in such a way that the limits of free speech are actually attacked, pushed back, and reduced by minority protest. When the subjective nonsense of offense taken sets up the stage in a theater and then any critique is declared "fire" the theater must be impeached, not the voice. It is utter rubbish that muslims can incrementally dissemble the core values of western freedoms by broadly launching struggles against the full spectrum of their host culture- from the classrooms, to the workplace, the the civil open space, on and on ad nauseum. Western culture is surely under siege. The final product will be ominous irrespective of whether islam prevails.

4. Hate speech is totally meaningless, subjective, and makes thought and free association a crime. If hate speech had any depth the koran would be banned. It is unimpeachable that the koran is a singular body of the greatest corpus of hate speech the world has every seen. Cloaked in religion, we give it a pass. Thus while hate speech laws are enacted, only those whom the islamic text hates are assailed. It is absurd.

5. Some people would object to the notion that "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist." They would cite dead soldiers, lost friends, 9/11, West Bank, Achille Lauro, etc. They would be citing all emotional pleas without any substance, to leverage the point. You are entirely correct though and any objective, grown up consideration of these problems reveals that, yes, "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist." This has been true since the Zealots, Masada, and long before such landmark moments like these. In the final act, the victors will define which is which.

[Morch]

There is huge amount of hypocricy going on in Europe, its a laughing stock really.

In France it is a crime to deny the so called " Armenian Genocide"

But if you mock the prophet who is worshipped by a billlion people, it is called freedom of speech.

What would happen if I as a turk, set up a magazine there and mocked the victims of the Armenian genocide?

What if I published a cartoon showing Hitler putting jews in an oven?

My magazine would be raided by the cops the same day, and I would probably face jail time. And mossad would probably assasinate me. Dont get me wrong, I am not a nazi, nor do I like Hitler, he is a sick person.

2 Turkish kids were jailed in Poland 2 years ago for doing nazi salute as a joke. Is this freedom of speech, they werent even serious.

So tell me what is the difference between mocking the prophet and the genocide victims? S.A.V Mohammed is considered very holy in Islam, whether you like it or not.If you mock him, you're taking a very big risk in a continent with millions of muslims.

When there is real freedom of speech in Europe, I might consider moving over there. But there is no freedom of speech, you cant say hail hitler, you cant mock genocide victims, you cant call gays pervarts. This is BS really. Until you're allowed to do these things there is no freedom of speech, freedom of speech only exists if you're mocking the muslim minority.

As I wrote on another thread, if other religions were granted the same dispensations in the Islamic world as Islam is in the West you might have a point, though I note that Turkey just allowed the first new Church opening in 90 years. They are not and as such the only equitable approach is when in Rome do as the Romans do, and if you don't like it don't let the door hit you on the backside on the way out. The genocides, including the Armenian one were real enough, the existence of Mohammad and his status as a prophet are (shall we charitably say) not proven. This is not intended to be provocative, but just to demonstrate how perceptions are culturally so different, like mixing oil and water.

In Turkey if you say that the Armenian Genocide took place, no one will touch you. Its not a crime. And regarding the existence of mohammed, its not what you think, its what they think about it. They beleive he existed, and love him very much. Youre playing with the feeligs of his supporters when you publish offensive cartoons about him.

Turkey is hardly a bastion of the freedom of speech.

As for the airing Armenian Genocide in Turkey, the rather well cases of Orhan Pamuk and the late Hrant Dink may paint a different picture. My personal experience is that, in general, it is a topic best not brought up. While it does not constitute a legal offense as such, it certainly falls under the notorious Article 301.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orhan_Pamuk#Trial

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrant_Dink#Prosecution_for_denigrating_Turkishness

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_301_%28Turkish_Penal_Code%29

Every country got its own rules regarding what is acceptable and what is not. It certainly appears that compared with other groups Muslims have trouble with this concept, and feel it is their right to violently enforce their views.

[paddyjenkins]

The Pope is right. Don't push people to the edge, express views but don't insult, ridicule or rubbish the deeply held views and faiths of others.

And then, if you haven't done that, then you have right on your side if people do attack you, because you know you did nothing wrong to provoke that attack.

You do though have a right to express your views in a way that is logical and constructive, as opposed to vulgar and belittling. If people try to silence these respectfully expressed views through terrorism or bullying or threats then you are in the right and they are wrong, as far as I am concerned.

Maybe there is a fine line between the two, but we all know where it is.

Edited January 17, 2015 by paddyjenkins

[transam]

We are in a situation where folk who cannot think outside their religious "box" must be taken into consideration............The West in their "wisdom" decided to take folk into their country that have very different religious beliefs.......If a country does that then they must take into consideration those beliefs.......For sure NOT bow down but take stuff into consideration.... If a country cannot do that then tell folk to stay in their own country where their religious stuff is cool.......

[jpinx]

I'll pick up a some points from your post.... You said:_

"....these are the only people on earth who do this because they are divinely authorized to....."

Given that Islam is about 500 years younger than Christianity, it'd pay to look at what Christianity was doing 500 Years ago.

"....That there are no rights to free speech unless the speaker accepts responsibility first for the consequences is the law of the jungle......"

The measure of a culture is best taken by looking at how civilised are the poorest people in it. Basically you measure from the bottom up

The "Roman Civilisation" was only civilised because they didn't allow any riff-raff in, and used slaves and mercenaries. Their religion changed and the empire fell. One can't help but wonder if there is a more significant connection between these events than has been revealed by the largely christian historians.

Your further comments on free speech are very USA-centric (no criticism ) Most regimes actually restrict speech - especially hate speech - in many ways, starting with simple libel but going all the way up to anti-terrorism.

Remember that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. For as long as opposing views are not resolved by negotiation the hot-heads on both sides will have their way.

1. We don't live 500 years ago; we live now! Finding qualifying similar horrors from history does not change the fact that I am living in terrible times and do not want to live in terrible times. Knowing christians, jews, or buddhists did this or that and when, does not change my perspective nor mitigate my conclusions. I do not believe it even provides context. The point is, we do not want to find precedent; we want it to stop and history does not provide a useful clue how to do this.

2. I am uncertain that what constitutes a civilized people can be placed in one sentence, the one you have- but it is likely very close to right.

3. I am US born and raised but I am a Patrick Henry John Locke kinda guy. I believe in limits of speech in very limited circumstances, igniting strife and violence would constitute a grey area for limiting speech for sure. But this begs the question. You cannot have the parameters of civil society changed in such a way that the limits of free speech are actually attacked, pushed back, and reduced by minority protest. When the subjective nonsense of offense taken sets up the stage in a theater and then any critique is declared "fire" the theater must be impeached, not the voice. It is utter rubbish that muslims can incrementally dissemble the core values of western freedoms by broadly launching struggles against the full spectrum of their host culture- from the classrooms, to the workplace, the the civil open space, on and on ad nauseum. Western culture is surely under siege. The final product will be ominous irrespective of whether islam prevails.

4. Hate speech is totally meaningless, subjective, and makes thought and free association a crime. If hate speech had any depth the koran would be banned. It is unimpeachable that the koran is a singular body of the greatest corpus of hate speech the world has every seen. Cloaked in religion, we give it a pass. Thus while hate speech laws are enacted, only those whom the islamic text hates are assailed. It is absurd.

5. Some people would object to the notion that "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist." They would cite dead soldiers, lost friends, 9/11, West Bank, Achille Lauro, etc. They would be citing all emotional pleas without any substance, to leverage the point. You are entirely correct though and any objective, grown up consideration of these problems reveals that, yes, "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist." This has been true since the Zealots, Masada, and long before such landmark moments like these. In the final act, the victors will define which is which.

1. I'm not suggesting we should live 500 years ago, but those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them. 500 years ago the USA was populated by "natives" -- look what happened to them when the European hordes arrived. My point really is that everything in life grows and develops - like a child. Anyone who has read the Quran will know that it gives as many conflicting resolutions as the Bible. Any extremist can quote out of context to support his criminal actions. It's taken a long time for Christianity to get on top of the worst extremes perpetrated in it's name, now Islam will hopefully work through the same process. Your plea to make it stop is the same as the desperate parents wanting the teenager to stop whatever temporary madness is happening with their kid. As I have said many times, the laws exist in society, but the application is patchy.

2. Yea -- well -- nothing in humanity is easy to define. One of the disadvantages being that language is as much a barrier to understanding as an enablement. Until there is a genuine "common understanding", things will always be tricky. When you consider the difficulty of explaining colour to a blind man, that is probably close to the difficulty of achieving the understanding needed for peaceful co-existence. Look at how tricky the integration issues are in USA, one of the world's most mulit-cultural societies. Unfettered free speech has been a blunt instrument in that process.

3. I apologise for my ignorance, but I have no clue who Patrick Henry John Locke is. I will not personalise my discussion here by claiming to be anything specific other than a human.

4. Hate speech is already defined by several countries and there are now moves to make it illegal in a more direct way.

[jpinx]

There is huge amount of hypocricy going on in Europe, its a laughing stock really.

In France it is a crime to deny the so called " Armenian Genocide"

But if you mock the prophet who is worshipped by a billlion people, it is called freedom of speech.

What would happen if I as a turk, set up a magazine there and mocked the victims of the Armenian genocide?

What if I published a cartoon showing Hitler putting jews in an oven?

My magazine would be raided by the cops the same day, and I would probably face jail time. And mossad would probably assasinate me. Dont get me wrong, I am not a nazi, nor do I like Hitler, he is a sick person.

2 Turkish kids were jailed in Poland 2 years ago for doing nazi salute as a joke. Is this freedom of speech, they werent even serious.

So tell me what is the difference between mocking the prophet and the genocide victims? S.A.V Mohammed is considered very holy in Islam, whether you like it or not.If you mock him, you're taking a very big risk in a continent with millions of muslims.

When there is real freedom of speech in Europe, I might consider moving over there. But there is no freedom of speech, you cant say hail hitler, you cant mock genocide victims, you cant call gays pervarts. This is BS really. Until you're allowed to do these things there is no freedom of speech, freedom of speech only exists if you're mocking the muslim minority.

As I wrote on another thread, if other religions were granted the same dispensations in the Islamic world as Islam is in the West you might have a point, though I note that Turkey just allowed the first new Church opening in 90 years. They are not and as such the only equitable approach is when in Rome do as the Romans do, and if you don't like it don't let the door hit you on the backside on the way out. The genocides, including the Armenian one were real enough, the existence of Mohammad and his status as a prophet are (shall we charitably say) not proven. This is not intended to be provocative, but just to demonstrate how perceptions are culturally so different, like mixing oil and water.

In Turkey if you say that the Armenian Genocide took place, no one will touch you. Its not a crime. And regarding the existence of mohammed, its not what you think, its what they think about it. They beleive he existed, and love him very much. Youre playing with the feeligs of his supporters when you publish offensive cartoons about him.

Turkey is hardly a bastion of the freedom of speech.

As for the airing Armenian Genocide in Turkey, the rather well cases of Orhan Pamuk and the late Hrant Dink may paint a different picture. My personal experience is that, in general, it is a topic best not brought up. While it does not constitute a legal offense as such, it certainly falls under the notorious Article 301.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orhan_Pamuk#Trial

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrant_Dink#Prosecution_for_denigrating_Turkishness

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_301_%28Turkish_Penal_Code%29

Every country got its own rules regarding what is acceptable and what is not. It certainly appears that compared with other groups Muslims have trouble with this concept, and feel it is their right to violently enforce their views.

No single thing justifies another, but it's worth bearing in mind that the USA has no trouble imposing their version of "law" (mostly fiscal and security) on people all over the world.

Christianity still sends missionaries to the poor and most susceptible people to boost their ranks, instead of just helping without seeking a return.

[Lissos]

[dragonfly94]

Personally I don't believe Islam deserves any respect whatsoever. If you look at the life of the prophet and the supremacist calls for violence and division in the Koran, together with Islamic intolerance and violence all around the world and barbaric sharia law, just what is it they expect us to respect? In the case of the cartoons we are talking about a slave owning thief who raped women, had people butchered after he promised them free passage and even had a pregnant woman torn to pieces in front of him. Then there was the child abuse of course. If people want to take the piss out of this monster then I think it's perfectly justified.

[arjunadawn]

I'll pick up a some points from your post.... You said:_

"....these are the only people on earth who do this because they are divinely authorized to....."

Given that Islam is about 500 years younger than Christianity, it'd pay to look at what Christianity was doing 500 Years ago.

"....That there are no rights to free speech unless the speaker accepts responsibility first for the consequences is the law of the jungle......"

The measure of a culture is best taken by looking at how civilised are the poorest people in it. Basically you measure from the bottom up

The "Roman Civilisation" was only civilised because they didn't allow any riff-raff in, and used slaves and mercenaries. Their religion changed and the empire fell. One can't help but wonder if there is a more significant connection between these events than has been revealed by the largely christian historians.

Your further comments on free speech are very USA-centric (no criticism ) Most regimes actually restrict speech - especially hate speech - in many ways, starting with simple libel but going all the way up to anti-terrorism.

Remember that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. For as long as opposing views are not resolved by negotiation the hot-heads on both sides will have their way.

1. We don't live 500 years ago; we live now! Finding qualifying similar horrors from history does not change the fact that I am living in terrible times and do not want to live in terrible times. Knowing christians, jews, or buddhists did this or that and when, does not change my perspective nor mitigate my conclusions. I do not believe it even provides context. The point is, we do not want to find precedent; we want it to stop and history does not provide a useful clue how to do this.

2. I am uncertain that what constitutes a civilized people can be placed in one sentence, the one you have- but it is likely very close to right.

3. I am US born and raised but I am a Patrick Henry John Locke kinda guy. I believe in limits of speech in very limited circumstances, igniting strife and violence would constitute a grey area for limiting speech for sure. But this begs the question. You cannot have the parameters of civil society changed in such a way that the limits of free speech are actually attacked, pushed back, and reduced by minority protest. When the subjective nonsense of offense taken sets up the stage in a theater and then any critique is declared "fire" the theater must be impeached, not the voice. It is utter rubbish that muslims can incrementally dissemble the core values of western freedoms by broadly launching struggles against the full spectrum of their host culture- from the classrooms, to the workplace, the the civil open space, on and on ad nauseum. Western culture is surely under siege. The final product will be ominous irrespective of whether islam prevails.

4. Hate speech is totally meaningless, subjective, and makes thought and free association a crime. If hate speech had any depth the koran would be banned. It is unimpeachable that the koran is a singular body of the greatest corpus of hate speech the world has every seen. Cloaked in religion, we give it a pass. Thus while hate speech laws are enacted, only those whom the islamic text hates are assailed. It is absurd.

5. Some people would object to the notion that "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist." They would cite dead soldiers, lost friends, 9/11, West Bank, Achille Lauro, etc. They would be citing all emotional pleas without any substance, to leverage the point. You are entirely correct though and any objective, grown up consideration of these problems reveals that, yes, "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist." This has been true since the Zealots, Masada, and long before such landmark moments like these. In the final act, the victors will define which is which.

1. I'm not suggesting we should live 500 years ago, but those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them. 500 years ago the USA was populated by "natives" -- look what happened to them when the European hordes arrived. My point really is that everything in life grows and develops - like a child. Anyone who has read the Quran will know that it gives as many conflicting resolutions as the Bible. Any extremist can quote out of context to support his criminal actions. It's taken a long time for Christianity to get on top of the worst extremes perpetrated in it's name, now Islam will hopefully work through the same process. Your plea to make it stop is the same as the desperate parents wanting the teenager to stop whatever temporary madness is happening with their kid. As I have said many times, the laws exist in society, but the application is patchy.

2. Yea -- well -- nothing in humanity is easy to define. One of the disadvantages being that language is as much a barrier to understanding as an enablement. Until there is a genuine "common understanding", things will always be tricky. When you consider the difficulty of explaining colour to a blind man, that is probably close to the difficulty of achieving the understanding needed for peaceful co-existence. Look at how tricky the integration issues are in USA, one of the world's most mulit-cultural societies. Unfettered free speech has been a blunt instrument in that process.

3. I apologise for my ignorance, but I have no clue who Patrick Henry John Locke is. I will not personalise my discussion here by claiming to be anything specific other than a human.

4. Hate speech is already defined by several countries and there are now moves to make it illegal in a more direct way.

1. While there are enough conflicting mandates in the koran to render it dubious at the very basic academic level is it patently false that it conflicts with the layman. Aborgation, a concept commanded by Al Lah, and transmitted by the prophet, reserved forever the right of Al Lah to change his mind in conflict with earlier injunctions. Under abrogation, when a later passage is in conflict with an earlier passage, the later passage takes precedence. As the earlier passages were writtten during the tolerance phace in Mecca, when nacsent Islam was struggling for even a footing, these injunctions to get a long, love, and be peaceful were soundly turned inside out by later, abrogated, passages. Example: The Sword sura. It was during these warring days, drunk with success and vanquishing enemies that the requirments of Al Lah became ever more extreme, hateful, and warlike. So, when an extremist quotes a dark passage for the justification of their actions, they are likely most surely citing authority that has been repeatedly confirmed as valid from the very mouth of the prophet himself. It is the "moderates" who dissasemble and offer BS earlier passages to pose 1/2 truths of fraternity and brotherly love to the west. Remember, some of these same injunctions to get a long took place at a time when the prophet was reaching out to the jews in Medina. Thus, many are neutral to positive. But the prophet was soundly rejected by the jews as a new prophet, and his musing and mandates from Al Lah turned quite ugly. These later, ugly, warring, and slaughtering injunctions became the valid blueprint islamic jihad uses today. The only extremists in Islam are the "moderates" the west loves to sing about, that silent majority, or the apostates. They may be desirable. They may be needed desperately; but they are not muslin's, irrespective of their claim they are. If they don't support universal shar'ia, the hirjah, and lesser jihad, they are apostates, not the jihadists.

4. Hate speech is among the greatest slipperly slopes of evil the world has ever produced. All manner of State opposition is silenced under the color of hate. It is truly breathtaking the scope of treachery employed in this fantastical equality in outcomes. The cognitive dissonance is not lost upon countless millions who realize they are increasingly having limits placed on speech that they would not otherwise even consider uttering but those who are daily, constantly, and provocatively spewing hatred and venom and murder and mayhem are not being remotely accountable; somehow they are protected under the color of religion or cultural relativity. The disconnect is totally mind-boggling.

Murder is murder and should be punished. Assault is assault and should be punished. But an assault with the ostensible motivation of hate carries a greater sentence. Really? How absurd. How subjective. Why? You cannot socially mandate who is loved and who is loathed. In essence, these laws extend from the legislation to the living room. Hate speech has people self policing in their own homes. However repugnant, there is nothing wrong with a human deeply disliking or hating another. It is the place under regular existing laws where such disdain traffics into actions that a crime takes place, not the motivation. Hate speech is vile and useless. Unless the single greatest cause of hate speech on earth is addressed the rest is just eyewash. Redact the hate speech from the koran and allow their imams to instruct from the remaining 20-30 pages.

[Fatty123]

The pope's comments are offensive to the victims' families and loved ones. Almost like 'they asked for it''.

It was a drawing. Yes. A drawing. Is your religion so weak that you need to send in a hit squad over a doodle? Perhaps the editor should've been more cautious and realised the dangers involved. But the killers planned this and shot anyone and everyone they came across in that building. The shooters were murdering scum and I hope their deaths were slow and painful. I'm not religious, but hopefully there is a 'god' and the gunmen have just woken up to an eternity in hell, rather than in heaven with 70 odd virgins.

[daveAustin]

Despite it obviously being wrong to kill over this and that Muslims are not special in any way, shape or form, the pope has a point. This magazine takes the piss and knows how it offends them. Freedom of expression and all that, sure, but having a dig at unhinged people worshiping a dodgy faith in this day & age? Not gonna say you reap what you sew, just that he's thinking along the right lines.

[tartempion]

Jeez, losing sleep over a cartoon, how deep can you fall?

[dragonfly94]

The pope is a &lt;deleted&gt;, can I say that?

[jpinx]

I'll pick up a some points from your post.... You said:_

"....these are the only people on earth who do this because they are divinely authorized to....."

Given that Islam is about 500 years younger than Christianity, it'd pay to look at what Christianity was doing 500 Years ago.

"....That there are no rights to free speech unless the speaker accepts responsibility first for the consequences is the law of the jungle......"

The measure of a culture is best taken by looking at how civilised are the poorest people in it. Basically you measure from the bottom up

The "Roman Civilisation" was only civilised because they didn't allow any riff-raff in, and used slaves and mercenaries. Their religion changed and the empire fell. One can't help but wonder if there is a more significant connection between these events than has been revealed by the largely christian historians.

Your further comments on free speech are very USA-centric (no criticism ) Most regimes actually restrict speech - especially hate speech - in many ways, starting with simple libel but going all the way up to anti-terrorism.

Remember that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. For as long as opposing views are not resolved by negotiation the hot-heads on both sides will have their way.

1. We don't live 500 years ago; we live now! Finding qualifying similar horrors from history does not change the fact that I am living in terrible times and do not want to live in terrible times. Knowing christians, jews, or buddhists did this or that and when, does not change my perspective nor mitigate my conclusions. I do not believe it even provides context. The point is, we do not want to find precedent; we want it to stop and history does not provide a useful clue how to do this.

2. I am uncertain that what constitutes a civilized people can be placed in one sentence, the one you have- but it is likely very close to right.

3. I am US born and raised but I am a Patrick Henry John Locke kinda guy. I believe in limits of speech in very limited circumstances, igniting strife and violence would constitute a grey area for limiting speech for sure. But this begs the question. You cannot have the parameters of civil society changed in such a way that the limits of free speech are actually attacked, pushed back, and reduced by minority protest. When the subjective nonsense of offense taken sets up the stage in a theater and then any critique is declared "fire" the theater must be impeached, not the voice. It is utter rubbish that muslims can incrementally dissemble the core values of western freedoms by broadly launching struggles against the full spectrum of their host culture- from the classrooms, to the workplace, the the civil open space, on and on ad nauseum. Western culture is surely under siege. The final product will be ominous irrespective of whether islam prevails.

4. Hate speech is totally meaningless, subjective, and makes thought and free association a crime. If hate speech had any depth the koran would be banned. It is unimpeachable that the koran is a singular body of the greatest corpus of hate speech the world has every seen. Cloaked in religion, we give it a pass. Thus while hate speech laws are enacted, only those whom the islamic text hates are assailed. It is absurd.

5. Some people would object to the notion that "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist." They would cite dead soldiers, lost friends, 9/11, West Bank, Achille Lauro, etc. They would be citing all emotional pleas without any substance, to leverage the point. You are entirely correct though and any objective, grown up consideration of these problems reveals that, yes, "one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist." This has been true since the Zealots, Masada, and long before such landmark moments like these. In the final act, the victors will define which is which.

1. I'm not suggesting we should live 500 years ago, but those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them. 500 years ago the USA was populated by "natives" -- look what happened to them when the European hordes arrived. My point really is that everything in life grows and develops - like a child. Anyone who has read the Quran will know that it gives as many conflicting resolutions as the Bible. Any extremist can quote out of context to support his criminal actions. It's taken a long time for Christianity to get on top of the worst extremes perpetrated in it's name, now Islam will hopefully work through the same process. Your plea to make it stop is the same as the desperate parents wanting the teenager to stop whatever temporary madness is happening with their kid. As I have said many times, the laws exist in society, but the application is patchy.

2. Yea -- well -- nothing in humanity is easy to define. One of the disadvantages being that language is as much a barrier to understanding as an enablement. Until there is a genuine "common understanding", things will always be tricky. When you consider the difficulty of explaining colour to a blind man, that is probably close to the difficulty of achieving the understanding needed for peaceful co-existence. Look at how tricky the integration issues are in USA, one of the world's most mulit-cultural societies. Unfettered free speech has been a blunt instrument in that process.

3. I apologise for my ignorance, but I have no clue who Patrick Henry John Locke is. I will not personalise my discussion here by claiming to be anything specific other than a human.

4. Hate speech is already defined by several countries and there are now moves to make it illegal in a more direct way.

1. While there are enough conflicting mandates in the koran to render it dubious at the very basic academic level is it patently false that it conflicts with the layman. Aborgation, a concept commanded by Al Lah, and transmitted by the prophet, reserved forever the right of Al Lah to change his mind in conflict with earlier injunctions. Under abrogation, when a later passage is in conflict with an earlier passage, the later passage takes precedence. As the earlier passages were writtten during the tolerance phace in Mecca, when nacsent Islam was struggling for even a footing, these injunctions to get a long, love, and be peaceful were soundly turned inside out by later, abrogated, passages. Example: The Sword sura. It was during these warring days, drunk with success and vanquishing enemies that the requirments of Al Lah became ever more extreme, hateful, and warlike. So, when an extremist quotes a dark passage for the justification of their actions, they are likely most surely citing authority that has been repeatedly confirmed as valid from the very mouth of the prophet himself. It is the "moderates" who dissasemble and offer BS earlier passages to pose 1/2 truths of fraternity and brotherly love to the west. Remember, some of these same injunctions to get a long took place at a time when the prophet was reaching out to the jews in Medina. Thus, many are neutral to positive. But the prophet was soundly rejected by the jews as a new prophet, and his musing and mandates from Al Lah turned quite ugly. These later, ugly, warring, and slaughtering injunctions became the valid blueprint islamic jihad uses today. The only extremists in Islam are the "moderates" the west loves to sing about, that silent majority, or the apostates. They may be desirable. They may be needed desperately; but they are not muslin's, irrespective of their claim they are. If they don't support universal shar'ia, the hirjah, and lesser jihad, they are apostates, not the jihadists.

4. Hate speech is among the greatest slipperly slopes of evil the world has ever produced. All manner of State opposition is silenced under the color of hate. It is truly breathtaking the scope of treachery employed in this fantastical equality in outcomes. The cognitive dissonance is not lost upon countless millions who realize they are increasingly having limits placed on speech that they would not otherwise even consider uttering but those who are daily, constantly, and provocatively spewing hatred and venom and murder and mayhem are not being remotely accountable; somehow they are protected under the color of religion or cultural relativity. The disconnect is totally mind-boggling.

Murder is murder and should be punished. Assault is assault and should be punished. But an assault with the ostensible motivation of hate carries a greater sentence. Really? How absurd. How subjective. Why? You cannot socially mandate who is loved and who is loathed. In essence, these laws extend from the legislation to the living room. Hate speech has people self policing in their own homes. However repugnant, there is nothing wrong with a human deeply disliking or hating another. It is the place under regular existing laws where such disdain traffics into actions that a crime takes place, not the motivation. Hate speech is vile and useless. Unless the single greatest cause of hate speech on earth is addressed the rest is just eyewash. Redact the hate speech from the koran and allow their imams to instruct from the remaining 20-30 pages.

You are forgetting that most of IS actions are against muslims. History notwithstanding (we don't live 500 years ago) the actions of the current advocates of a religion are the true measure. A small, extremely violent group has formed and are attacking other muslims as well as anyone else who gets in their way. They are not declaring war on christianity - they're declaring war on the world.

Hate speech is just another term used for something everyone knows to be basically wrong. The problem with hate speech nowadays is that it is disseminated worldwide in an instant. Without the support of the "free press", hate speech would actually be a far lesser annoyance. Another aspect is that hate speech is very simple and appeals to the lesser educated masses, especially if they are feeling threatened in any way. Controlling it is tricky, but it's going to be interesting how France reacts now.

The bible has many passages concerning war and retribution -- should those be edited out? The bible is just a mish-mash of documents selected by the Vatican from the vast library of scrolls they have in storage - and under lock and key so that no-one can know what's in there. It's reasonably certain that none of bible was written first hand. The scrolls they chose were "selectively" translated and never corrected. There are glaring errors throughout the bible, but we're not allowed to know the true writings.

[dragonfly94]

The bible has many passages concerning war and retribution -- should those be edited out? The bible is just a mish-mash of documents selected by the Vatican from the vast library of scrolls they have in storage - and under lock and key so that no-one can know what's in there. It's reasonably certain that none of bible was written first hand. The scrolls they chose were "selectively" translated and never corrected. There are glaring errors throughout the bible, but we're not allowed to know the true writings.

Likewise the koran is the result of human editing with bits left out and omitted due to oral reciters forgetting verses or being killed (in battle) before they were written down. Also various versions of the koran were gathered in and burned before the one we have today came about. However the argument of 'what about the Bible' is spurious as the few passages concerning war do not make Christianity a supremacist violent religion of convert or die ideology. The koran is and has over 109 verses praising or instructing violence. You have to take into consideration the influence of the founders of these two religions, one was a murderer, a slave owner a thief and a war lord who preached conquest vengeance and division. The other preached love the neighbor, turn the other cheek and blessed are the meek, no need to say which was which as their fruits can be seen worldwide today on the news.

[nottocus]

Religion has a lot to answer for.

[EyesWideOpen]

As the pope seems to be a leader of a large group of people riddled with kiddie fiddlers,

I am not sure his opinion on anything is valid. I would suggest he start cleaning his own

house before giving public proclamations about moral behavior in others. And an institution

so moronic it took the Catholic church 500 years to apologise to Galileo, a person who

had the incredible nerve to suggest the Earth rotated around the sun. For this he was

threatened with torture, and placed under house arrest until his death......

[Morch]

As I wrote on another thread, if other religions were granted the same dispensations in the Islamic world as Islam is in the West you might have a point, though I note that Turkey just allowed the first new Church opening in 90 years. They are not and as such the only equitable approach is when in Rome do as the Romans do, and if you don't like it don't let the door hit you on the backside on the way out. The genocides, including the Armenian one were real enough, the existence of Mohammad and his status as a prophet are (shall we charitably say) not proven. This is not intended to be provocative, but just to demonstrate how perceptions are culturally so different, like mixing oil and water.

In Turkey if you say that the Armenian Genocide took place, no one will touch you. Its not a crime. And regarding the existence of mohammed, its not what you think, its what they think about it. They beleive he existed, and love him very much. Youre playing with the feeligs of his supporters when you publish offensive cartoons about him.

*posts deleted to allow response*

Turkey is hardly a bastion of the freedom of speech.

As for the airing Armenian Genocide in Turkey, the rather well cases of Orhan Pamuk and the late Hrant Dink may paint a different picture. My personal experience is that, in general, it is a topic best not brought up. While it does not constitute a legal offense as such, it certainly falls under the notorious Article 301.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orhan_Pamuk#Trial

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hrant_Dink#Prosecution_for_denigrating_Turkishness

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_301_%28Turkish_Penal_Code%29

Every country got its own rules regarding what is acceptable and what is not. It certainly appears that compared with other groups Muslims have trouble with this concept, and feel it is their right to violently enforce their views.

No single thing justifies another, but it's worth bearing in mind that the USA has no trouble imposing their version of "law" (mostly fiscal and security) on people all over the world.

Christianity still sends missionaries to the poor and most susceptible people to boost their ranks, instead of just helping without seeking a return.

The USA allows most form of criticism within its borders. Its laws secure the right to do so. This holds true even for cases which annoy many a USA citizen. The USA does not impose these sort of values on other countries. Applying pressure in order to promote fiscal and security interests is pretty much the global norm. Violently attempting to enforce different freedom so speech standards in other countries, less so.

Christianity still sends missionaries abroad. That much is true. While not a believer, I have met enough Christians, who while religiously motivated and funded, carried out their efforts without overtly trying to convert anyone, rather leading by example. Some weren't even doing as much. Guess there is quite a range of missionary work and religious activities. Missionaries and their efforts are not always well received, not is their safety taken for granted. Are missionaries free to roam all the Muslim World without fear? Is this reciprocated by the way their Muslim counterparts are treated in the West?