Posted on 01/08/2015 7:43:14 AM PST by Kevin C
In the aftermath of the deadly assault on the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a French satirical newspaper, much of the world has rallied in solidarity with the publication, its irreverent cartoonists and their right to free speech. But not everyone is so supportive. Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League, a U.S. organization that "defends the rights of Catholics," issued a statement titled "Muslims are right to be angry." In it, Donohue criticized the publication's history of offending the world's religiously devout, including non-Muslims. The murdered Charlie Hebdo editor Stephane Charbonnier "didn’t understand the role he played in his [own] tragic death," the statement reads. "Had [Charbonnier] not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive," Donohue says, in what must be one of the more offensive and insensitive comments made on this tragic day. "Killing in response to insult, no matter how gross, must be unequivocally condemned. That is why what happened in Paris cannot be tolerated," says Donohue. "But neither should we tolerate the kind of intolerance that provoked this violent reaction." The statement says Charlie Hebdo has "a long and disgusting record of going way beyond the mere lampooning" of religious figures. "They have shown nuns masturbating and popes wearing condoms," Donohue says. "They have also shown Muhammad in pornographic poses." Among the covers is a too-racy-for-WorldViews depiction of the Christian Holy Trinity locked in a three-way homosexual orgy (as part of a critique of French religious leaders' opposition to gay marriage) and a whole array of images mocking pedophilia by priests. Charlie Hebdo doesn't pull its punches. But some critics say it goes too far, specifically with Muslims.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Well, it is still use of reason. Surely none of it is use of solely insults.
Some would conclude atheists are out to offend believers.
They could NEVER publish those cartoons in Saudi Arabia, or North Korea, or Iran or any of the other hellholes on this planet... Are those really the people you want to stand with?
This is sophistry. Courts don’t get that philosophical. Their test is something like:
1. Does the material start from a question and proceeds by some logical process to offer an answer? If so, this is protected speech.
2. Does the material offend the feelings normally present in a group of people likely to access it? If so, this speech is suspect.
3. Does the suspect material appeal primarily to feelings or to reason? If the answer is feelings, the suspect material is not protected speech.
This does not mean the offensive material must be banned. It simply does not enjoy a free speech protection. The authority may ban or censor it if the society as a whole is better off without it, and torts can be brought by private parties against it.
Atheistic argumentation is a good example of speech that appeals primarily to emotion. It starts with the premise that God doesn’t exist, a premise born of an intense desire not to believe in God. Their “reason” proceeds only upon the acceptance of this first premise.
By your logic, it is not protected speech.
Most atheist material is (1) because it seeks to prove that God does not exist.
To get to (3) it has to be, well, a cartoon or verbal insults with little or no logic.
When a person’s primary goal is to hurt the feelings of their audience, it goes straight to your number 3.
No it doesn’t; (1) is first test. Voltaire and Dawkins will stop right there. Protected speech.
Dawkins is about as emotional as you can get. A prominent sign of irrational thinking is when you refuse to acknowledge that your assertions have been demolished by the logic of your opponent. Just observe Dawkins debate John Lennox.
Wanting to assume the appearance of engaging in reasoned speech is not the same as actually engaging in it.
Looks like your way will lead to removal of protection from all speech.
BTW,I started thinking about services for the staff that were killed, I have not noticed any mention of mourning families,funerals,cremations,burials etc.and I am now wondering what they did with all of the dead bodies. Does anybody know?
I was puzzled when Osama Bin Laden was tossed off a boat following his death. There was so little to confirm that he actually had been offed. Oh well,I guess we are just to believe whatever it is they want us to believe.
Nice exaggeration there. Like hell I’m standing with any of them. Go back and read some of my other comments on this thread.
A scientist can get emotional too; certainly can an artist. The test is whether the argumentation is lacking and the content of the speech is directed at the listener’s negative emotion. Not whether the speaker gets emotional in the process or delivery.
You have established your argument on several points, including:
1) that the effect of blasphemy on the believer counts as harm
2) that such harm is settled in courts and results in removal of protection from speech
I offer a third point which demonstrates Voltaire and Dawkins must, according to your standard, lose protection of their speech:
3) to deny God’s existence is necessarily blasphemy if God in fact exists (and to the believer, he does).
But incurring harm alone is not the test. Absence of reason must accompany the harm to constitute a tort.
In what court?
In any civil court that has jurisdiction. The reason torts like this cannot be brought today is that the liberal interpretation of the US constitution prevents them. Well, libel cases and other cases related to speech are possible but cases against pornography, foul language and blasphemy cannot be brought. Once the supreme court clearly indicates that trash speech is not protected, that will change.
In France, I assume, something similar is going on, and a similar change is needed.
Well if this sort of case—currently just a fantasy—were ever to become a real court case, it would lose against the classic slippery slope argument.
Because any blasphemy can be shown to be either unreasonable or motivated by the desire to offend. As I’ve already pointed out.
And by the way it’s not a liberal interpretation if it conserves tradition. Get it?
Courts deal with slippery-slope arguments all the time, and defeat them by establishing clear tests. There are numerous tests, for example, in common law regarding defamation: truth, object of defamation, malice, etc. Likewise there are tests that allow some exaggerations in commercial speech but not others.
The American tradition is that speech generally may be censored. For example, some books by D.H. Lawrence and Henry Miller were banned in the US as recently as in the 50’s.
No kidding. And the point is it’s slippery so you stay away from it.
When I think of these terrorist attacks, I don’t think of banning cartoons. I think about solving the problem, which is the behavior of terrorists.
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.