This (the following video) is a good debate with some very good points.

A couple of points of interest from the video;

A chap wore a "Je Suis Coulibaly" teeshirt and was arrested for it..ironic considering the free speech argument.

Most of mainland Europe has outlawed holocaust denial, which is suppression of offensive speech and suppression of free thought.

I think this video has some very interesting takes. Where do YOU draw the line?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYDOrzoye-c

Nobody has the right to not be offended so that is the line.

That sounds like either nothing offensive to anybody should ever be uttered, or absolutely anything goes.

The first is preposterous and impossible, the second.......opens a can of worms; if offended, where is the line drawn on acceptable reaction?

It's always going to be difficult to draw the line, though one needs to be drawn.

If you insult somebody's mother, you get a 'papal punch'. At that level, the matter is dealt with easily on the spot.

But if you make, in the public domain, a remark which you know is going to cause offence, you are asking for trouble. The Charlie Hebdo cartoons were like a red rag to a bull.... and the bull charged. It could even have been predicted; the punishment for blasphemy under Sharia law is death, and that is what they got.

I don't know how a law can be devised which gives protection to the less violent members of the community as well as those, like the jihadists, who are going to resort to violence. However, the same protection needs to be extended to both.

I thought about how about no line, but be prepared to face the consequences. I immediately discarded the thought...it's ridiculous and would encourage bullying of people that would be highly offended but never do anything to react. Their lot in life would be to suffer the offensiveness. Western law tends to look after the weak and the disabled, the young and the timid...and so it should.

I'm trying to get a clear picture of what is reality and then from that, what reality should be.

In France, I can publish pictures that offend Muslims, but I can't print the words "The holocaust never happened". I can't wear a "Je Suis Coulibaly" T-shirt.

In Australia, I can stand on a soap box and say I hate gays, but I can't say I hate blacks.

Why the disparities?

Looking back on my first paragraph....perhaps that is it.....the law looks after those who will or can not react, and lets those who can react make the offender face the consequences?

That sounds like either nothing offensive to anybody should ever be uttered, or absolutely anything goes.

The first is preposterous and impossible, the second.......opens a can of worms; if offended, where is the line drawn on acceptable reaction?

People can be and are offended by anything.

I thought about how about no line, but be prepared to face the consequences. I immediately discarded the thought...it's ridiculous and would encourage bullying of people that would be highly offended but never do anything to react. Their lot in life would be to suffer the offensiveness. Western law tends to look after the weak and the disabled, the young and the timid...and so it should.

I'm trying to get a clear picture of what is reality and then from that, what reality should be.

In France, I can publish pictures that offend Muslims, but I can't print the words "The holocaust never happened". I can't wear a "Je Suis Coulibaly" T-shirt.

In Australia, I can stand on a soap box and say I hate gays, but I can't say I hate blacks.

Why the disparities?

Looking back on my first paragraph....perhaps that is it.....the law looks after those who will or can not react, and lets those who can react make the offender face the consequences?

I don't think that works, seastallion, because the consequences must also be within the law.

The weak must be protected, yes, but should the strong be denied protection when what they do is an exactly parallel action, such as blasphemy?

Point taken.

I'm basically musing out loud, trying to see if there is a line...or maybe it's a wavy line...

Take into fact also that the Charlie Hebdo journalists had been warned that something like what happened would happen. One of them had a 24 hour body guard - they had been warned. But they continued to, and why the hell not, to provoke. And look where that got them. I did'nt watch the whole video but one person mentioned Private Eye - same same.

The wife of the guy who did the kosher supermarket is supposedly the number one woman in the ISIS now. It was planned, it was thought out. they knew each other etc. I have as my main tv - French tv. They went through it with a fine toothed comb and got it all out.

That was just the beginning, more is to come. Look at Calais - do you think all those poor people trying to get to England are just looking for a better life for their families?

That sounds like either nothing offensive to anybody should ever be uttered, or absolutely anything goes.

The first is preposterous and impossible, the second.......opens a can of worms; if offended, where is the line drawn on acceptable reaction?

People can be and are offended by anything.

How dare you imply that I can be offended by anything?

I demand an immediate apology and damages.

That sounds like either nothing offensive to anybody should ever be uttered, or absolutely anything goes.

The first is preposterous and impossible, the second.......opens a can of worms; if offended, where is the line drawn on acceptable reaction?

People can be and are offended by anything.

How dare you imply that I can be offended by anything?

I demand an immediate apology and damages.

A little something.

Only around 200 Muslim protesters (finally) stand against ISIS in London

Only around 260 Muslims protest the Lee Rigby Killers

But thousands (between 1000-3000 reported) Muslims turn up to downing street to protest free speech and Charlie Hebdo.

https://jordanfrancispatricksmith.wordpress.com/2015/02/09/muslims-protest-charlie-hebdo/

It comes across as somewhat ironic that people will use freedom of speech to protest against freedom of speech. It's very much akin to people stating that you shouldn't use reason but come to that conclusion using reason.

Anyway, I found this....

An excellent piece by Sam Harris on the issue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itBK3KBMRGM

Friend of mine who goes by the YT name of CoolHardLogic. It's a must watch.

Take into fact also that the Charlie Hebdo journalists had been warned that something like what happened would happen. One of them had a 24 hour body guard - they had been warned. But they continued to, and why the hell not, to provoke. And look where that got them. I did'nt watch the whole video but one person mentioned Private Eye - same same.

The wife of the guy who did the kosher supermarket is supposedly the number one woman in the ISIS now. It was planned, it was thought out. they knew each other etc. I have as my main tv - French tv. They went through it with a fine toothed comb and got it all out.

That was just the beginning, more is to come. Look at Calais - do you think all those poor people trying to get to England are just looking for a better life for their families?

The supermarket has been cleaned up and was open for business again, starting yesterday.

WRT Calais - would it be better if the proto-immigrants each carried a couple of boxes of alcohol from the duty-free shops - they would be much more likely to be accepted as Brits.