Freedom of expression is far more important than causing offence to religious groups

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Do you agree with the title? Here is a small essay I recently wrote :

I believe that freedom of expression is infinitely more important than causing offence to religious groups. Firstly, a religion is a belief held by certain people that live under certain laws. The freedom of speech (and expression) law is fundamental to society, and, according to many, it is more important than any religious law that is held only by a few people. For example, in Denmark, the cartoonists that depicted Muhammad in a peculiar light believed that they were not prohibited from doing so. They may have pushed the Muslim community a bit far, but that does not mean that their freedom to show what they believe should have them imprisoned, or even killed, as more extreme members of the Muslim community want.

One could say that the beliefs held by religious groups are paramount to their path, in life and in their input to society. To offend such groups could, in their opinion, lead to a life in Hell, therefore it may not be wise to do so. These religious members believe that religion is “their entire life”, and could be angered, and could therefore be prone to attacks, as seen in Indonesia due to the offences shown above. The religious people believe that God is above law, therefore to practise God’s laws, i.e. praying to Him, should be above law also. This, as a result, means that there should be a law against insulting and causing offence against God, and his practises. This means effectively eliminating freedom of expression, at least when it is against religious groups, and it is derogatory.

However, I believe that religious groups, and its members, should not have the right to condemn others for their actions that are perfectly suitable and fitting in today’s society. Martin Rowson famously said that “it is the [Muslim] clergy exercising their power with the easiest form of attack – being permanently offended.” This text shows that, although some religious people may be offended, the fundamental plan is to destroy any attacks against itself rather than actually being offended.

[MaximiIian]

Do you agree with the title?

Very much so, yes.
However, if said of freedom of expression allows racists to speak thier racist mind, then that freedom should be curbed slightly to dissallow racism.
Non-racists, like me, would have no reason to get ticked, we're not racist.

But, generally, freedom of expression and historical correctness is more important than political correctness.

[danzig]

Very much so, yes.
However, if said of freedom of expression allows racists to speak thier racist mind, then that freedom should be curbed slightly to dissallow racism.
Non-racists, like me, would have no reason to get ticked, we're not racist.

But, generally, freedom of expression and historical correctness is more important than political correctness.

All or nothing, if you set limits then you provide the justification to provide further limits. Racist speech as vile as it is has to be allowed for that reason alone imo. Plus you run into cases where speech isnt really racist but some groups attempt to classify it as such, unlike some of our European posters I dont believe anyone should have to be hauled before a judge to decide whether or not something they said is racist. It provides a level of intimidation as people watch what they say for fear of being hauled into court.

Do people honestly not believe in the basic and practical consideration of others whenever it collides with freedom of expression?

Not when its enforced by the state I dont. Unless someone is making specific threats (Im going to kill you, Im going to over there and shoot that guy, yelling fire in a crowded mall etc) then freedom of speech is more important.

[MaximiIian]

It provides a level of intimidation as people watch what they say for fear of being hauled into court.

Well, if they're intimidated into watching what they say, maybe morons and racists will think before they blurt things out.

[danzig]

Well, if they're intimidated into watching what they say, maybe morons and racists will think before they blurt things out.

Morons and racist wont care, despite all the laws there are still neonazis in Germany no? It harms innocent people and strangle debate. Take for example crime and blacks, to some politicans here in NYC any suggestion of crime/african americans related to poverty is viewed as racist point of view regardless of the outcome of the debate, the debate itself is racist to them. Then there are things like political satire, comedy etc.

[Darth Wong]

In a purely hypothetical extreme situation where offense to a religious group led to nuclear war and the deaths of hundreds of millions of people, one could probably argue that freedom of expression wasn't important enough to justify that. One must weigh consequences (and yes, I know, my hypothetical extreme situation is not very realistic; I'm just throwing it out as a scenario).

[Denny Crane!]

In a purely hypothetical extreme situation where offense to a religious group led to nuclear war and the deaths of hundreds of millions of people, one could probably argue that freedom of expression wasn't important enough to justify that. One must weigh consequences (and yes, I know, my hypothetical extreme situation is not very realistic; I'm just throwing it out as a scenario).

I don't find that hypothetical situation totally unrealistic since we have an islamic state trying to procure nuclear capabilities and at the same time calling for death and destruction on certain countries. It doesn't leave me feeling confident about the future.

Our western rights are important, but our attitude to Islam is not working. In short we need to find a middle ground which balances freedom and respect.

So should we protect our society and freedoms yes, should we deliberatly provoke fury and anti western feeling? No and we should avoid things that will. The only time that will cause a conflict is if it contradicts part of our western ideals.

Peter

[Ummon]

In a purely hypothetical extreme situation where offense to a religious group led to nuclear war and the deaths of hundreds of millions of people, one could probably argue that freedom of expression wasn't important enough to justify that. One must weigh consequences (and yes, I know, my hypothetical extreme situation is not very realistic; I'm just throwing it out as a scenario).

Or this line of reasoning, warrants preemptive genocide.

The truth is that, it is not freedom of expression which causes a nuclear war, but the other side's inability to cope with it. Since without freedom of expression there is no freedom, should we renounce freedom, or renounce life?

Most decidedly, not a good line of reasoning at all.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

However, with freedom of expression, there will always be the chance of offence. How do we counter this? Is there any way to get past insults?

Or, to rephrase the question, what is more important - the ability to take offence, or fierce patriotism?

[Tom Paine]

However, with freedom of expression, there will always be the chance of offence. How do we counter this? Is there any way to get past insults?

Or, to rephrase the question, what is more important - the ability to take offence, or fierce patriotism?

If someone insulted extremely the USA, would it respond? Of course. And it'd be lauded for it. Because its a nation. But when a group is insulted, if they don't have a large minority, they have no protection and they don't get the same sympathy of a large minority....

[Ummon]

However, with freedom of expression, there will always be the chance of offence. How do we counter this? Is there any way to get past insults?

Or, to rephrase the question, what is more important - the ability to take offence, or fierce patriotism?

It is necessary that those who want to live in free countries, learn not to get offended by other people's freedom. Otherwise, they can keep being unfree.

[Tom Paine]

It is necessary that those who want to live in free countries, learn not to get offended by other people's freedom. Otherwise, they can keep being unfree.

No. With freedom of expression comes responsibility of expression. All freedom comes with responsibility.

[Freddie]

When you start restricting people freedom in particular the freedom of speech you start on heading down a dangerous road in which one day you could potentially find yourself awake in totalitarian state were public expression and opinions are an offensive to the state let alone minorities.

I not saying that Europe is at that stage yet but in Britain we have placed restriction on what people can’t say and do in public heading such as flaming religious violence against other groups, you can no longer protest against the government within 100 yards of Parliament etc.

As far as respect for others goes it shouldn’t be up to the state to lay down rules as to what people can and cannot say because as Margaret Thatcher taught us “We should stand on our own two feet…” i.e. not expecting the government to hold our hands and nanny us. It should be up to the individual to make that choice and people and citizens should be responsible within themselves as to what they say, who they say it to and how they say it and in which capacity. The point being that you should be respect others out of commonsense and not by law.

[David Deas]

Do people honestly not believe in the basic and practical consideration of others whenever it collides with freedom of expression?

[Gladiator]

People have every right to express their opinion on something as long as they do not impinge on the norms and values of society. If someone doesn't like one's opinion then they have every right to express their distaste at it. However, people need to take into consideration the possible repercussions of such a remark before opening their mouth. Sometimes things are best left unsaid.

[Cluny the Scourge]

Personally I'd drown a priest/imam/rabbi in my **** before I let him stop me from seeing a badly-drawn and tedious cartoon I wouldn't have wanted to see in the first place if he hadn't objected.

It's the principle of the thing.

[David Deas]

Not when its enforced by the state I dont. Unless someone is making specific threats (Im going to kill you, Im going to over there and shoot that guy, yelling fire in a crowded mall etc) then freedom of speech is more important.

Why?

Communications that effort little or no social value toward truth rather than inflicting immediate injury are not within the spirit of freedom of expression. I see no reason why freedom of expression without regard to basic consideration for other human beings is always practical.

[Kscott]

Well, we have freedom of expression, however If I went up to a female and said you ****ing ***** I could be subjugated to the law. Infact you can even get fined your raising your middle finger at someone. Surely these laws should of basic respect should be aplied to religions aswell.

[Vorenus]

I agree with freedom but to a point, people shouldn't have the right to say everything that they want, if saying something upsets people. the people where upset when the cartoon was found out. yes the way they handled it was propbley not the best idea but you would be upset if you were in their place.

[Ahiga]

I agree with freedom but to a point, people shouldn't have the right to say everything that they want, if saying something upsets people. the people where upset when the cartoon was found out. yes the way they handled it was propbley not the best idea but you would be upset if you were in their place.

"I think that people who play Rome Total war are losers who have no life". If I've upset many people here, then in that logic I should not have a right to say that.

Just about anything that is opinionated or on a heated topic might upset people. By this logic, they don't have a right to it.

And I wouldn't be upset in their place, because I wouldn't put any figure in so great a light that I demand nobody depict it as they wish. I saw a cartoon of a stickman michael J fox being unable to shoot Hitler with a sniper rifle. It was making light of parkinsons, which my dad suffers from and I have to bear the sad sight of daily. I was mad at it, but that's it. I didn't demand the website pull down the content. I didn't riot or demand their heads. I respected their right to be idiots and make a joke about something they don't understand. I flamed them, definately, and I argued with those who found it to be funny.

Hell. It might offend some muslims to have women not being in burka's - Shall we force women to give up their freedom of dress because it might upset people, the same way it's suggesting that we force individuals to give up freedom of speech to satisfy others.

Where is such tolerance when they are chanting Death to America? Behead the Danes? Iran's Anti-Semitism?

Shall we be told we need to be the bigger man and the more lofty-idealed one and take the high road?

Tolerance is a virtue. It's not a requirement. I'd not want to live in a police state where tolerance is inforced, just as I wouldn't want to live in a dictatorship where intolerance is urged. Both are too far on the spectrum. When it comes to something like jobs or treatment in the work place, I understand the demand of tolerance.

But when it's conversation, political cartoon, editorial, whatever in the sytle that it only effects people's minds and not their occupation and the like (I realize this is poorly worded, I ahvent much thought on this part of the statement), I can't support inforcing people to feel one way or act another way