freedom of speech?

Question

What do you consider being "freedom of speech" ? When Ahmadiejad is denying the holocaust or when Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad (pub) are pubished?

I do know that the Holocaust happened. No doubt about that. I just would like to find out where people draw a line.

What is freedom of speech?

Answer 1

Both Ahmedinijad's speech and the Danish cartoons are "freedom of speech" . . . but then Ahmedinijad's speech was essentially a denial of established facts and blatant contradictions of earlier remarks he had made publically, while the Danish publication of the Mohammad cartoons was a protest against religious censorship by Mohammedans on the Western media.

While the Mohammedans protested violently against the "insult" of the cartoons, they regularly publish far more derogatory and demonizing characatures of Jews and Christians in the Arabic press. And, to my knowledge, NO Mohammedan has been killed by Jews or Christians or sentenced to a "fatwa" of death for these characterizations.

To see the kinds of cartoons published by the Mohammedan media, you might want to check out www.memri.org (click: "Subjects", then "Anti-Semitism Documentation Project", then "Inquiry and Analysis Series - No. 368) as well as www.memritv.org.

//http://www.memri.org
//http://www.memritv.org
//http://islam-the-monster-unchained.blogspot.com

Answer 2

Freedom of Speech is the right of an individual or news media to say anything they please, irrespective of whether it has any truth, is pornographic, offensive to other people.

There are laws in various nations, and religious organizations that will try to "get you" if your speech is very offensive to them..

Also, you can be subjected to a law suit, if you say something libelous, slanderous, defamation of character against another person who takes offense and tries to sue you.

In some nations, advertising is called commercial speech ... if someon adevertises a product can do something, or will be sold at some price, and this advertising can be shown to be false, there can be fines for the falsehoods in the commercial speech.

Unfortunately, the Arab press sees nothing wrong with anti-semetic garbage, but will blow a fuse over things like the Danish cartoons ... the anti-semitic stuff habitually published by Arab media is 1000 times worse than the Danish cartoons.

It is like "Politically Correct" has a double standard.

Answer 3

This is a very good question and basically encompasses the issue of freedoms in general. Freedom of speech is the biggest undefinable in modern democracy. For the most part, the line is drawn at hate-mongering; what exactly is hate-mongering is a matter of political and social opinion however. The Danish felt that a cartoon depicting Mohammed was not hate-mongering even though it offended Muslims. Apparently one is allowed to be offensive as long as one's sentiments are not hate-filled, which the comic was deemed not to be. Denying the holocaust on its own seems benign; however, in those countries that were active participants in the holocaust, denying its veracity is tantamount to enabling it to happen again, and thus in countries like Germany rejecting the holocaust is on par with hate-mongering. Furthermore, denying the holocaust is a matter of fact and not opinion; the holocaust happened, plain and simple. As Mr. Bollinger pointed out, the holocaust is the most documented event in human history - there is no room for doubt. And therefore, those who reject its veracity do so only for alterior motives; if they truelly came from academic objectivity there would be but one conclusion to reach. For this reason, Ahmadinejad's comments do not fall under the protection of freedom of speech. His holocaust denials are but one facet of his philosophy of belittling Israel's legitimacy as a Jewish state, which is certainly unacceptable.
Going back to the Danish cartoons, if I understand correctly the issue was the depiction of Mohammed at all and not the implication that Islam is a terrorist religion. I can see why this is clearly offensive to Muslims - it is violating their religious beliefs with their own religious character. However, it is not considered illegal to depict Jesus doing lewd and unchristian things - it is done all the time. Therefore I must conclude that the cartoons, while in bad taste, were not illegal and are protected under freedom of speech.

Answer 4

Freedom of speech is to say anything about anyone/thing that is on your mind.

It is not limited to subject matter. Where people are confused is when the government (of any nation) decides that a subject, religious, political or other wise is off limits.

Here let me show you an example of free speech.

I think Bush, Chaney and Congress should be arrested for treason and if found guilty executed in front of the Constitution as a sign to the whole world that nothing is above the Constitution. And that includes the bible, Koran or any other text.

Answer 5

Good question!

We must have freedom of speech. I guess it goes back to the idea that you can hate someone's opinion but you will defend to the death their right to say it.

But what happens when freedom of speech gives certain people and groups a platform to incite racial hatred? If a radical Muslim preaches and calls for the death of Jews and Israelis, then obviously I don't think this should be allowed.

And if an Israeli militant says the same thing about Muslims or Palestinians, I wouldn't accept or condone this either.

So I guess I'm saying that freedom of speech is vital, until and unless it enables someone to encourage violence and hatred.

Sorry if this sounds like I'm sitting on the fence, h!

(And thank you for your kind words about me in a previous post, much appreciated)

Answer 6

Freedom of Speech is to express your opinion and to respect others' opinion. It is related with tolerance and democracy in a society.
So if one is hitting below the belt, it is not freedom of speech but mockery and insanity. We can judge both Ahmadienejad and Danish cartoons on this principal, and both would not be justified.

Answer 7

No comparison ...in one case it was a complete overreaction to those stupid cartoons which , if no comment had been made , would never have reached the world press !

What amazes me is that on one hand some Muslim countries find it NECESSARY to ban Christians freedom of speech yet on the other claim victim status when in fact the west give them total freedom to practice their faith with NO restrictions....what are they afraid of ? That people might see the hypocrasy in this !

In the case of the mass executions of minorities during Hitler's mad reign , although disputed as regards the numbers , it is a matter of history !

Answer 8

Freedom of Speech is the right of any individual to say whatever they wish about any substantive matter free of restraint by the government.

It has nothing whatever to do with whether other individuals wish to listen nor is it a right to be free of criticism, public opprobrium, boycott or any peaceful, non-violent, demonstration of disagreement. Permitting others to speak freely, even when we strongly disagree, is not a sign that we accept what is said.

Mr. Ahmadinejad ought to be free to voice his beliefs concerning the Holocaust and the Danish cartoonists ought to be free to publish their work free of any government constraint and without becoming the targets of violence.

And you and I ought to be free to agree or disagree about either and to voice that agreement or disagreement in any peaceful, non-violent way we choose.

As to Ahmadinejad specifically, I think it a very good thing that he be allowed to speak at Columbia and be subject to the questioning of students in a free country. By doing so we further expose him as the mendacious, bigoted monster he is.

The answer to evil, foolhardly, or ignorant speech is not less speech but more speech; not less freedom but more freedom.

Freedom shines a light on evil and ignorance that they cannot endure which is exactly why evil and ignorance always seek to limit and surpress free speech.



EDIT: Reading the responses that follow is one of the most demoralizing and disappointing things I have done recently.

Please note the last sentance of my response above.

What does it say about this group when so many stand ready to limit or surpress the speech of others?

Can none of you see that once you decide that you can limit speech by pasting a label on it that is defined by you that there is NO LIMIT on what can be surpressed?

In the United States they once banned James Joyce's writing as "pornography" and decreed that others could not speak because they were "Un-American". In New York State, five duly elected socialists were expelled from the State Assembly because their speechs were labeled "subversive." Labeling something as "hate speech" and then using that as an excuse to ban it makes you no better than the people who banned James Joyce.

If someone says something which you find offensive then ENGAGE them in debate. What are you afraid of? If they are as wrong as you think they are then their errors will soon be exposed.

Ahmadinejad was lampooned and mocked on every talk and comedy show on American television last night. The falsehoods of his speech at Columbia were exposed. His claim that there are no homosexuals in Iran is one more ludicrous assertion that can be added to the many he had already made. Whatever small credibility he might have had in the Western world has been diminished even further by allowing him to speak.

I repeat, let the lunatics, the haters, the liars, the deluded and even the plainly evil speak and then speak out yourself.

Stand up and make plain your devotion to freedom, truth, tolerance, and dialogue by your words AND by your deeds.

That is the way to defeat evil.
.

Answer 9

"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself."

--Thomas Jefferson.

I find freedom of speech to be full-encompassing. People should be able to say, write, or draw whatever they so choose even if it is a lie, wrong, immoral, etc. I also believe with such a "right" comes a responsibility for what one says. Though you may have the right to say whatever you'd like, you should be held accountable say if you could foresee it causing a riot and it in fact does.

Answer 10

sure- Freedom of speech ability you have the perfect to declare what you want, lie or no longer. The section human beings get caught up in, is that the liberty of speech does no longer propose you do no longer could take accountability for what you're saying. All of our movements have outcomes, as they could. I actual have the perfect to allow you be responsive to a lie- regardless of the outcomes of that lie are, I could settle for. Therefor, you're able to continuously think of until now you communicate- you have the perfect to declare regardless of that is- yet do you want to take the fall-out from it?