Posted on 01/26/2015 1:03:50 PM PST by Enza Ferreri
The author writes:
"There is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech.
Even those who sincerely believe that they uphold this principle often don't realise they wouldn’t be prepared to accept any word expressed in any circumstance."
Apart from the obvious logical fallacy of staring your argument with a presumption that everyone else is somehow lacking in intellectual capacity, the author fails to realize that the responsibility assumed by those who believe in free speech is to tolerate the speech of others they disagree with. And to recognize the moral failure, in for example, hitting the obnoxious protestor. That's why freedom loving Americans can go toe to toe with leftist protestors and not end up in a giant fist fight.
Under Ferreri's logic, a violent response to speech is expected and natural, and limits on speech are acceptable. In fact, he advocates protecting Christianity from speech directed against it:
"Here we get to answer the question regarding the core principles and goals that must be protected from attacks, the line that freedom of speech must not cross .... Christianity must be protected from its enemies, then as now ... That revolting excuse of a rag has been a procession of covers offending Christianity"
In the end Ferreri ends up essentially where the terrorists started - believing that a magazine can "offend" a religion, and therefore it should be suppressed or punished. That's a ridiculous point of view.
I want absolute Freedom of Speech, because I want to know who the jerks are.
What possible meaning can a cartoon in a magazine have when compared, for example, to the Bible? Does seeing a cartoon, however ugly, really matter? Does it weaken your faith?
Yeah, you can't scheme to defraud anyone. I suppose you have to actually use “speech” when you are conning someone from their money. This is all getting a little ridiculous. Yelling fire in a theater hardly has anything to do with free speech. It is a crime of causing a public disturbance.
These authors damn well know what we mean by “Free Speech” but are playing ridiculous games of grammar.
A better argument would be around the lines of incitement to violence. That is where it gets a little blurry at times.
well yes, that was implied in the conversation that spawned that cliche.
“....when you accept that idea that freedom of speech is related to religion....”
.
I just used it as an example because it looks that, in the end, it will be a matter of life and death struggle with Islam.
Neither Europe nor America want to even discuss this matter, but “in their hearts” they know that I am right.
In the meantime they’ll just continue kicking the can down the “Islam is a ROP” road.
"This is one of the fallacies often propounded by the so-called "New Atheists" like Richard Dawkins: question everything."
Huh? Whatever you might thing of what Dawkins does say, this is not something that comes from him.
You are confused about what "free speech" means. An employer firing an employee because it disapproved of a work product is not a free speech issue. The employee had no free speech right to work for the employer or have his work published in the magazine.
In the legal sense, "free speech" is about the government not restricting speech. It doesn't require private individuals to sponsor speech they don't like.
In the moral sense, which is what is at issue in the Charlie Hebdo incident, "free speech" is about not killing someone for speech you don't like. It isn't about offense, or approval. Go ahead. Take offense. That's your right too. But you don't get to kill people for publishing things that offend you. This isn't hard and it isn't a grey area. You just need to think about it more clearly.
By framing it as “absolute” free speech i throw everything away that is said. Everyone agrees that absolute free speech is stupid, so why not instead highlight the argument differently? The way the question is put out there disqualifies the whole following discussion
The problem isn't absolute free speech or not. The problem is understanding what free speech means. Free speech should be absolute, yes. The government has no moral authority to tell people what they can't say. But free speech does not mean that people don't have a right to be offended by what you say, or that you aren't responsible for direct consequences of what you say.
Too many people confuse "free speech" with the different notion that you shouldn't be responsible or criticized for your speech.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.