On Freedom of Speech:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/world/europe/05march.html?hp
In the article a group of Islamists are protesting the war in Afghanistan by honoring the corpses of British soldiers killed by other Islamists over in the Middle East. There is a movement of sorts to ban it. Now, personally, I find such behavior disgusting and repulsive, and bordering on barbaric. I do not see it, however, as worthy of being repressed.
In the USA Fred Phelps behaves like a douchebag to everyone because he is constitutionally able to do so. In the UK, it is the same way, one pays the price for Freedom of speech by tolerating douchebags, though freedom of speech does not equal to a mandate to listen to or agree with such speech either. If Fred Phelps and his band can behave like douchebags here, then by the same token these Muslim real-life trolls should be allowed to do the same. It could even be argued that by being allowed to do so it discredits any appeal to persecution on the part of the authorities and gives them enough metaphorical rope to hang themselves.
What do others think? Does the right to freedom of speech mean that Fred Phelps or these Islamists should be as offensive as they wish? Or should people simply censor the unpopular beliefs of these people in order to "secure public decency" as the old euphemism used to be? In my opinion the right to offend trumps the right to censor always, so I wonder what others think.
In the article a group of Islamists are protesting the war in Afghanistan by honoring the corpses of British soldiers killed by other Islamists over in the Middle East. There is a movement of sorts to ban it. Now, personally, I find such behavior disgusting and repulsive, and bordering on barbaric. I do not see it, however, as worthy of being repressed.
In the USA Fred Phelps behaves like a douchebag to everyone because he is constitutionally able to do so. In the UK, it is the same way, one pays the price for Freedom of speech by tolerating douchebags, though freedom of speech does not equal to a mandate to listen to or agree with such speech either. If Fred Phelps and his band can behave like douchebags here, then by the same token these Muslim real-life trolls should be allowed to do the same. It could even be argued that by being allowed to do so it discredits any appeal to persecution on the part of the authorities and gives them enough metaphorical rope to hang themselves.
What do others think? Does the right to freedom of speech mean that Fred Phelps or these Islamists should be as offensive as they wish? Or should people simply censor the unpopular beliefs of these people in order to "secure public decency" as the old euphemism used to be? In my opinion the right to offend trumps the right to censor always, so I wonder what others think.