Why should I take your word for it?
(italics mine). That’s right-Within Their Respective Religions. Outside of their respective religions, in the public sector, there is no right to demand that others not of their religious persuasion obey their religious precepts. Unless France passes a law saying that the Prophet cannot be depicted, tough shit.
First of all, would the person burning them own them? If not they should get tossed in jail for theft.
If they do for some reason, you think anyone would kill the burners? Seems unlikely.
Now, how about the mass of anti-Semitic crap published in Arab countries. You know, stuff attacking real people, not long dead ones. Is this the same or worse than drawing cartoons?
Don’t. Go look around try to find one such incident. Prior to Charlie Hebdo, there was Theo Van Gogh, Salman Rushdie, and people executed by Muslims for apostasy.
Firstly, nobody here defends those killings. I was talking about that perceived “right” to make that caricature, not the response to it. (And let’s not forget that, out of about 1.8 billion Muslims, approximately 1.8 billion did NOT kill anyone.) And secondly, I don’t think that anyone’s faith is threatened in this context. People are pissed because it was an act of “hitting where it hurts most” and directed at Islam on the most general level, rather than criticizing specific aspects or expressions. “You are Muslim; and that’s reason enough for me to take what’s most sacred to you, and trample it.”
Speak for yourself. I strenuously disagree.
That’s just the First Amendment in the US (and similar legalities). It is, within the Constitutional framework, a recognition of the natural right of self-expression. It is not the whole embodiment of that right, for all people and all time. Of course.
Nonsense. This is like saying that you don’t have free speech because the Times is not required to publish your ramblings.
You have an inherent right to say your piece. You have no right to say it, without restriction or reaction, in other people’s venues.
What is law in some country does not determine what is morally right or wrong. If it’s okay to do it to one group of people, it should be fine to do it to another group as well, no?
- What is this “perceived ‘right’” crap? It is an actual legal right, and all the handwaving in the world isn’t going to make it go away.
- If Muslims thought that it was only a “perceived right”, please tell us what legal recourses they went through in France first before taking the terrorist route? When they entered the country they agreed to follow the laws of that at all times…not just when they were in the proper religious mood.
Yes. So you can publish a cartoon as obscene as you want with Mohammed in it. You can also do a “Piss Christ” photograph and exhibit it. You can go and burn a Torah scroll if you want (you do have to buy it first, big $). And there is no law against any of these things. So what exactly are you objecting to?
That is assumed, yes.
Probably not. So? Does that mean whether or not it’s okay to do something depends on your expectations for getting killed in response?
It’s wrong as well. By and large, worse, because it easily leads to antisemitic violence. But again, I don’t see how that makes the caricature right.
What is law in one country is what you agree to obey when you become a resident of that country. No?
To the massive defense of that “right”, or, more precisely, to the perception that that IS a right.
It is not a perception-it is a legality.
Yes, it is a “right” and yes, it has to be massively defended precisely because with a lot of people that particular expression of the right may be unpopular. You don’t have the right to shut other people up so that you’re not offended.
How are societies without free speech better than societies with free speech (including the freedom to be offensive about religion)?
Huh? You realize that the vast majority of people are in no position to agree to anything when they become a citizen of their country, right? Not to mention that most would have a hard time to find a country whose laws are entirely agreeable with them.
I’m not talking about the general, legal right to free speech that protects from government oppression.
(As a side note, Judaism has an expansive set of laws regulating what may or may not be said to or about others, and even oneself; and I’ve always found it utterly enjoyable and refreshing to be around people who follow those laws. It’s kinda nice when people don’t attack and slander each other at every opportunity.)
I realize that in France, as in the United States, there are methods other than violence to change laws, and if you can’t change all the laws to make every single aspect of your life perfection to the detriment of all those who don’t believe as you do, either grow up or go away. If they entered France only with the intent of changing it to suit their religious precepts through any means necessary, then they lied to enter the country.
It was an attack on a certain kind of free speech, which is the only type of attack on free speech that has been undertaken as far as I know. Nobody has launched an all out assault on speech. French government outlawing certain kinds of free speech is not considered an attack on free speech by many. Also the US govt attack on the freedom of speech of whistleblowers is not considered an attack on free speech by many. Basically it boils down to your own political biases.
Isn’t it funny how they don’t expect anyone other than Jews to follow those laws?