Can we please try and distinguish between LEGAL and MORAL right? Obviously CH did not break French law, and I never suggested they did. I’m sure we can all think of examples of laws in some countries that we don’t agree with just because they are laws.
Then what are you talking about? Voluntary being-nice sounds great, but should force or violence be used against those who say things that are not nice?
What should be the response, in your mind, if someone draws a cartoon like the ones from Charlie Hebdo? What should be the response if someone kills the cartoonist for this?
Ok. How do you decide what is a “moral right”? Also, do you have a right (I guess a “moral right”) to force others to adhere to your definition or a “moral right”?
Bullshit.
Also bullshit.
“Freedom of speech” as philosphical concept is not the same thing as from “the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,” in the same way that “Human Rights” as a concept is distinct from “the United Nations Universal Decalaration.” The latter is a specific explication and legal codification of the former, but the concept is bigger than any one manifestation of it.
For one thing, there are plenty of societies that – more or less – embrace “freedom of speech” as a concept without having laws on the books specifying any such limits. The UK, AFAICT, is one such.
For another, the concept goes far beyond legal codification. Imagine one household where the evening dinner table features lively debate on a whole host of topics, with everyone expected to participate; imagine another where only the parents speak, and children are forbidden to utter a word unless a parent asks a question. Confining the concept to merely a restriction on government means concluding that the two households are equally devoted to “free speech” as an ideal of human flourishing. I would call the latter an example of bad parenting, and that’s my moral judgement.
The First Amendment only pertains to government. Free Speech is a much bigger concept.
Read this sentance aloud to to youself.
I do, as do plenty of others. I just recognize that it isn’t the ONLY moral issue, and that it doesn’t automatically trump all others. I’ll accept someone talking shit about my mother up to a certain point, and then I’ll conclude they’ve crossed the line. I’ll accept, even embrace, moderating up to a certain point, and for certain reasons, and after that I’ll conclude the moderators are intolerant assholes. The fact that there is not 100% unanimity on where the line is does not mean people do not agree to the concept as an ideal.
Which was less morally right-The cartoons or the murderous response?
You appear to be muddling two different things together here, neither of which have anything to do with the topic.
The interpretation of free speech as a prohibition against government restriction thereof pertains only to the First Amendment of the US Constitution and equivalent constitutional protections in other nations. That’s not the general definition of free speech, and has no relevance here.
And it’s equally irrelevant whether it’s a moral issue or not, a claim that no one here has made.
What is relevant in this discussion is that when someone takes it upon themselves to unilaterally impose punitive consequences on someone else because of something that person said, it is by definition an attempt to restrict speech. Any moral or ethical or legal questions are beside the point. Any other motivations are beside the point. It’s a freedom of speech issue by definition, period.
I have no moral qualms against drawing cartoons of Jesus or Moses.
The murders.
You’ll have to excuse me; you keep making arguments that have nothing to with what I said; and I’m getting tired of that.
And what is the appropriate response, when someone tramples on what is most sacred to a person?
This.
Satire is often vulgar. Other times, it’s mild. But none of that matters. Free speech is what matters.
That said, I have to ask: Isn’t the prophet big enough to take a few insults?
How does anyone decide what’s morally right or wrong? And how am I “forcing” anyone? What the heck is wrong with saying you don’t think that something is okay?
Nothing. If that is as far as it goes. Is that your point - that you have a right to say that you don’t think someone’s actions are ok? If so, you’re absolutely correct. But that is a trivial point.
That depends. Why?
Nothing, if you are just expressing your opinion. But when someone tries to try to put moral force behind it, or compel compliance with their beliefs, that crosses the line; and violent retribution is right out, I think we all agree.
Oh, I see. You were talking about the attackers, not about me. May I point out, again, that I’m in no way trying to defend their actions? My opinion of that caricature does not depend on other people’s response to it.
It seemed like you were leading up to something. As if insulting what a person holds most sacred justifies a certain response; or, should be warning to those who cast the insults, as though they should expect consequences.
You want to talk about why the attack happened without talking about the fact that the attack was an overreactive illegal terrorist act. In other words, you would like to censor the conversation.
Sorry, but I’m afraid that’s going to be a no go.
What about the terrorist’s response to it?
Again, you (or anyone) can have any opinion of the cartoon you like. You can also express that opinion, loudly and publicly, if you like. What you cannot do is force someone to desist from publishing that cartoon. Because THAT would be an attack on freedom of speech. I hope this made it clearer for you.
Alright, my bad. I went off topic when I expressed my opinion about the caricature, rather than the attacks. So, one more time, for all to see, here’s what I think about the killings: Do not murder.