Freedom of Speech and Politically Correct Action?

Question

Did anyone see the South Park where the Family Guy staff was going to show Muhammed on their shows, and the Muslims got outrages, and Bush was defending the 1st ammendment?

It got me thinking: what is the right course of action in this scenario:

The Islamic faith forbids using Muhammed's image in any media, for any purpose. But we have freedom of speech in the US, and showing Muhamed serving a sandwich really isn't 'bad' per se. So which rule takes precedence? Or is it that one rule is unfair, and if so, which one?

Answer 1

It's been shown without question when the Danish newspaper apologized for the Muslim cartoons that PC behavior (toward some groups) is more highly prized than freedom of speech.

Another example is the often quoted "N" word that can only come from the mouths of people with some degree of ***** blood while other racial epithets are ignored.

Answer 2

It does not "guarantee" anything. Also, after the last almost six years with B**h and his destructive, arrogant, and war-mongering dictatorship, the last thing this administration cares about is the "People's Rights." This administration has all but shredded the Constitution. It's always a work in progress with ammendments; however, these criminals try to change the law to fit their needs. God help us make it two more years. Freedom of Speech comes with responsibility and common sense. I think our founding fathers tended to give future generations, as well as the so-called future leaders, more intelligence and understanding then we actually (most of us, anyway), have. Now Canada REALLY has freedom of speech. Yet Canadians keep coming to America. Has anyone noticed how many actors/actresses are from Canada? They can stay here forever too. All they have to do is get a special working Visa and if they make it, they are pretty much set for life. Non-citizens do not pay any taxes except sales tax. This is something that needs to be changed. They are making a lot of money in this country and should pay taxes like any other citizen.

Answer 3

Freedom of speech always comes first but like Hardaway found out, you better be able to deal with the consequences.

From a legal standpoint there is no law banning the use of the picture (separation of Church and State - could they even enact a law to ban that, or Jesus - doubt that). If the muslims sue, on what grounds would the court uphed the suit? None, afterall the president gets mocked all the time.

The crux of the matter is this: Just because you can legally do something doesn't mean you should. Being considerate to others and actually thinking about the golden rule can go a long way.

The only responses you can generate to doing such a thing are negative ones and the US really doesn't need to give muslims mor reasons to hate it.

Answer 4

Then the Islamic faith had better not watch that episode of South Park. This is the US and such a choice can be made. Expanding the 1st amendment to the world wide stage doesn't work. Freedom of speech is only free if you have the freedom to not listen, think about it.

Answer 5

freedom of speech comes fisrts. the issue is rather or not the image is insulting (eating a non-pork sandwich is not) and where it will be released. most muslims in america are more understanding about these things and like all americans, they learn to balance two(+) cultures.
now if we intentionally broadcasted those images into another country where there are devout muslims that would just be rude and not protected by the 1st amendment because the only reason to do that is to insight violence.

Answer 6

I don't think free speech should be viewed as right to insult others, but we are treading on the slippery slope here. Who gets to decide what is free speech? and if you succeed in abolishing one type of speech what speech will you go after next? History has proved that abridging freedom only leads to more of the same. While I find many things that are said in our society offensive, I also believe that in order to protect the freedom for all that it must be allowed. As to the Muslims, they are entitled to have what laws they choose in their countries and I have the right to choose not to live in those countries. As for the specific episode of South Park, it aired quite awhile back and I don't remember any mass uprising against it in this country. This leads me to believe that maybe American Muslims believe freedom is important also.

Answer 7

I personally don't believe that any religion should expect their personal beliefs to be catered to by non-religious people. If someone wants to make a commentary that involves an image of Muhammad, they shouldn't be restricted by another religion's dogma. That being said, after the viewing the final product, I might say it was in bad taste if it seemed like it was done for the sole purpose of offending people, in which case I wouldn't think too highly of it or the person who made it. Nevertheless, they should have the right to do it.

Answer 8

Freedom of speech should always take precedence. Everything said can be taken offensively by some people. It's the "speakers" responsibility to have the respect not to do so, but they shall reserve the right to do so as well

Answer 9

The 1st Amendment only applies to the federal governemnt ("...Congress shall not...") it does not apply to private enterprise. If comedy central decides not to show the image of Muhammed, that is their choice, it has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. Our speech is protected from infringement by our government, not our employer. The "right choice" is whatever one the boss makes. If you don't like it, work for someone else.

Answer 10

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Translation: Congress can't censor media, nor can it enforce religious edicts....there's no conflict within the Bill of Rights.