LeCastor Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 If you couldn't already tell from my username, I am a francophone and a francophile. Having lived and worked in France, the terrorist attacks last week hit very close to home. We are all Charlie in that we all have the right to express our opinions. However, I ask you now: just because we can does that mean we should? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 We should be free to exercise our own personal judgment to answer that question for ourselves, personally. I submit that in a free society this is what will happen no matter what this forum, for example, concludes should happen. Unless we collectively decide to restrict speech in some manner for everyone, that decision will always ultimately be left to each of us individually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sentinel947 Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I believe firmly in the public marketplace of ideas, where the Truth will rise above the nonsense and the lies. These middle eastern terrorist groups fear freedom of thought, speech and worship. If these things are allowed, there won't be any room for them or their ideology. That being said, ideas and speech that demeans and hurts others should be held to a higher standard of evaluation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwazse Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I have a couple of friends who are political cartoonists. So, I know that they've born malice from extremists, and it made them think twice about what they drew. I think there are bounds on taste. If we are merely mocking someone else, or setting them up for abuse, then maybe we should change our tone. If we are appealing to someone else to see things at a higher level, then maybe they should listen. I agree with Pack that you can't legislate courtesy. And those gunmen who felt the could do so by force are mere pawns in someone else's very nasty game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonG172 Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Trying to explain that very thing to my daughter (16) Yes there is Free Speech but there is also consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stosh Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 What we say is not a reflection on what we believe, it is a reflection of who we are. Are we tolerant? Are we courteous? Are we kind? I can either impose my free speech on others, or I can be patient and wait for those who are interested to ask. Stosh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick_in_CA Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Free speech is meaningless unless it also applies to unpopular and objectionable speech. As for the "should we" question, that is harder. I agree that society is better off when we are polite and courteous to each other. I believe you should try to avoid offending people without good reason. However, sometimes speech that some find offensive is both appropriate and necessary. The trick is knowing the difference between "appropriate and necessary" and "just because I can". And the answer to that is not always obvious. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeBob Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Yes. If we are brave enough. Mockery is a very powerful political force. (Look what Tina Fey did to Sarah Palin...) If certain Muslims are not secure enough in their worship of a prophet to withstand a little ridicule from the rest of us, then they deserve our mockery. If we communicate to them we are too afraid of them to laugh at cartoons, then they are winning. We will be terrorized. World-wide mockery of Radical Islam will diminish their hold over young minds. Think of it this way: would your boys be more likely to join a clique that their peers laughed at, or a group that their peers were afraid of? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stosh Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Ran across this quote many years ago, and it applies quite nicely: "It is better to be silent and thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." Stosh 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeattlePioneer Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 <United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. >> Please notice that the first amendment doesn't guarantee "freedom of expression." And even the first amendment applied only to the Federal government. Unfortunately, the First amendment has been corrupted and rewritten by Federal judges drunk with their own power and arrogance. Look at the murder, arson, looting and mayhem justified after the Ferguson, Mo decision as "freedom of expression." If you want a broad definition of "freedom of expression", look no further than the protest by the Moslem shooters in Paris last week. No doubt the guy who shot the two police officers in New York thought in terms of HIS right to "free expression" too. The "journalists" in Paris who delighted in crude caricatures of those they didn't like were no doubt surprised when they got bad reviews from those people last week. You want "freedom of expression"? You got in in Paris last week, with the police shootings in New York and the Ferguson, Missouri riots and mayhem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twocubdad Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 They didn't get bad reviews, they were murdered. I get your point, SP, and understand what you were trying to say, but that is one of the more offensive things I've read here lately. Yes, just because we can, we, indeed, should. Otherwise that's the First Amendment equivalent of "if you have nothing to hide you won't mind me searching your car." Civil Rights are useless unless they are exercised from time to time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeBob Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 The "journalists" in Paris who delighted in crude caricatures of those they didn't like were no doubt surprised when they got bad reviews from those people last week. Uh, no. They were not surprised. Charlie Hebdo was firebombed in 2012. The presence of police guards at Charlie Hebdo attests to their being prepared for radicals doing something stupid. Charlie Hebdo choose to not be terrorized. You? (Man! I can't believe I'm extolling French bravery!) http://www.wsj.com/articles/charlie-hebdo-staff-rush-to-prepare-post-attack-edition-1421076776?tesla=y&mg=reno64-wsj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAHAWK Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 Freedom of conscience, in all its aspects, is relatively new in human affairs. Many date its origin no further back than Breitenfeld (1632). It has certainly not been a steady upwards journey since. I hope that it prevails despite all the evidence of history that coercion (not to mention nonsense) often prevails. Murdering someone because he offends you is common, and monstrous. "Thou shalt not murder." A completely honest person, were he or she ever to exist, would be a monster of another sort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packsaddle Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 LeCastor, what you see unfolding here is each of us making that decision ourselves. I am fairly certain that no one (so far) has changed their mind about their First Amendment rights or what they 'should' say - as a result of what someone else has argued. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeCastor Posted January 13, 2015 Author Share Posted January 13, 2015 It was as rhetorical question. And I see from JoeBob's other thread that the vitriol is "unfolding". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now