Just Because We Can, Does That Mean We Should?

[Stosh 3452]

If one were to read the First Amendment very carefully and read just what's there, it's kinda revealing:

 

"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law .... abridging the freedom of speech ...."

 

Okay, the government can't make laws abridging the freedom of speech, but the constitution doesn't protect the individual from getting their teeth knocked out by someone who took offense at what was said. The First Amendment is directed towards what the federal government can't do, NOT THE INDIVIDUAL. You're on your own, and you take your chances. It's not covered by the Constitution.

 

Yes, the federal government in all three branches have corrupted the intent expressed in the Amendment and what the government hasn't gotten to, individuals also corrupt it further through traditional practices that have no basis in the Constitution.

 

Stosh

[packsaddle 753]

LeCastor, Indeed. We should watch to see 'how' it unfolds. That might be instructive.

[SSScout 1616]

Kirby Delauter is an elected Councilman in Frederick County Maryland. He threatened to sue a reporter for using his name in an article about the county council. http://www.fredericknewspost.com/news/politics_and_government/delauter-issues-apology-calls-social-media-blast-to-news-post/article_ae995daf-d43e-5ec7-a011-0111103e9005.html When he realized that he was , indeed , a "public figure", he had second thoughts.

 

How is this episode similar to Paris? Both alledgedly injured parties felt "insulted". Both felt the need to "do" something. One decided to kill the source of their angst, the other sought to merely "kill" the source's professional life. One sought to convince others with violence, the other by proving his opponent wrong by law and logic. One saw no way to withdraw their decision, the other was dissuaded by friends and relations. ''

Many have used their religion as a rationale for their violence. Names have been mentioned above. One can go all the way back to the Crusades and further back for examples. The problem remains that killing someone never serves to convince or convert them.

The only way to convince someone of the rightness of a belief is by the evidence of the believer's life. Hence the success of Jesus, Buddha, Mohammed, Confucius , Bahá'u'lláh, and others. A person who is an "adherent" by force is not a "believer" . The jihadists have not come to this conclusion yet, and may never.

We should never use "well, they did it" as an excuse for our own actions.

[walk in the woods 888]

Related to freedom is responsibility. It will be interesting to see if any of the survivor's estates pursue civil action against Charlie Hebdo once the dust has settled. I think the concept in the U.S. is that speech that endangers others isn't covered by a first amendment argument (shouting fire in a crowded theater). I wonder if some might make the argument that publishing the cartoons endangered the victims, including the police and maybe the civilians in the deli.

[JoeBob 606]

I wonder if some might make the argument that publishing the cartoons endangered the victims' date=' including the police and maybe the civilians in the deli.[/quote']

Is this because the actual murderers can't be sued? Dead. Or is it because that Jihad has no bank account that lawyers are brave enough to go after?

 

I'm quite surprised by the attitudes on the forum.

The opinions condemning Charlie Hebdo for standing up for their ideals far outweigh the posts blaming the Radical Muslim Murderers "What did you expect? They are Radical Muslim Murderers. It's what they do. Be afraid. and act accordingly.":

 

[tyke 31]

Je suis charlie

[Cambridgeskip 658]

Related to freedom is responsibility. It will be interesting to see if any of the survivor's estates pursue civil action against Charlie Hebdo once the dust has settled. I think the concept in the U.S. is that speech that endangers others isn't covered by a first amendment argument (shouting fire in a crowded theater). I wonder if some might make the argument that publishing the cartoons endangered the victims' date=' including the police and maybe the civilians in the deli.[/quote']

 

I can't see that happening. French culture and constitution values freedom of speech far more than any other country I can think of.

 

 

I think the answer to the original question is not a straight forward yes or no.

 

I can think of two different people who both hold the same opinion. They are devout atheists (if that isn't an oxymoron) to the point that they believe that bringing up a child in any given faith is an act of child abuse. I was raised as and still am a Christian and both of them know this. Now one of them has never actually voiced his opinion to my face (although I know second that he holds it) and he has sufficient respect for others views and sufficient desire not to offend others and to be my friend not to do so. And we are good friends.

 

The other individual frankly couldn't give a monkey's and has voiced his opinion to my face. Now he has the right to say what he wants but with that comes a responsbility to accept what I think of him. Now to be fare he doesn't actually seem to care what I think so maybe he should say it because he can. However if he were to turn round and cry because I called him an arrogant fool (which I did) well frankly he just shouldn't have opened his mouth in the first place.

 

It's also not as straight forward as only do it if you are prepared to accept the consequences. I think events in France make that plain. Maybe only do it if you are prepared to accept what might be called "reasonable" consequences?

[Stosh 3452]

It's kinda too bad that these people have a god that needs them to murder for him. I'm thinking the real God of Islam can take care of himself. This is the problem of any radical religion, these people think themselves as self-appointed protectorates of a God that doesn't need protecting, but it's a good excuse to produce the destruction of what their God abhors. This is why they always wear a veil of shame when they act. True champions of any religion do not hide their faces.

 

The words, actions, and beliefs of humanity has no affect on God, but they will all be judged accordingly.

 

Stosh

[CalicoPenn 729]

 

I can't see that happening. French culture and constitution values freedom of speech far more than any other country I can think of.

QUOTE]

 

Ok - I'm going to call a foul on this statement. I can think of at least one country that values freedom of speech more than France. It's the United States of America. I'm not being nationalistic or patriotic as I say it - I'm being factual. The United States has very limited exceptions to free speech protections (and let's be clear right now - we're talking governmental restrictions on free speech - France is no different from the US is not extending free speech rights in private business to citizen interactions). France has actually carved out many more exceptions. Indeed, they have one of the most comprehensive hate speech laws on the books. In fact, it's rather ironic that last week the French government was declaring how important free speech is in France and this week, they're arresting people for exercising free speech rights on he grounds that the speech is hateful to others. The United States has no laws preventing holocaust denial speech - France does. The US has no laws against anti-semitic speech. France does. The United States has no laws preventing anti-Catholic speech. France does. Technically, Hebdo is probably guilty of violating France's laws against inciting racial hatred with the publishing of those cartoons. In fact, then President Chirac offered Muslim groups the use of his personal lawyer to bring charges against Hebdoe in 2009 for publishing those cartoons though the charges were not pursued.

 

I was just going to comment on the irony of France arresting people for speech the week after they declared that free speech is so important but the quote was just seredipitous timing.

 

As to the original question - my answer would be no. Sure, we may have the right to do something but that doesn't mean we should just darn the torpedos and go full speed ahead without considering where it might take us. Heck - we self-censor all the time - when the wife asks if a pair of pants makes her look fat, how many men think about it for a little bit rather than just blurting out "Yes" (and women, if you have to ask that question, it doesn't matter if your hubby says no - the answer is always yes, whether we say it out loud or not). But, if you decide that you must say it, I'll defend your right to say it, even if I do think you're a fool for doing so.

[Eagledad 2779]

I think the question would be a little easier if the people who express themselves were held accountible to the laws. We have laws against damaging property and more importantly, injuring and killing individuals. Let's start with those abuses of freedoms, then maybe the question of expression etiquette will be a little more clear. Barry

[Sentinel947 1205]

We all have a right to express our opinions. Thankfully in many Western countries. there are very few limits to that freedom. As a Catholic, when people make disparaging blog posts or cartoons about my religion or it's leaders I get offended, and I decide I will not read their content anymore. I stop going to those websites or cancel my subscriptions. May their advertising dollars be lost. Nothing talks quite like money.

 

Unfortunately their are misguided nutters who think that because they are slighted they can resort to violence. However, I'm pretty sure they would have attacked somebody else for another reason, if the satire hadn't made Charlie such an alluring target for them. What the terrorist's did was a monstrous thing. But the staff at Charlie Hedbo knew they were antagonizing extremists. Extremists, by definition, do extreme things. Like shoot journalists and cartoonists they disagree with.

 

So in response to the OP. My answer is absolutely not. Just because we can, doesn't mean we should. With the government, where we are generally protected, we should feel empowered to say whatever we want. But the pretty idea of freedom of expression doesn't necessarily apply to our dealings with other non governmental entities. We can be punished for our opinions in a multitude of ways. (Who here really cares that Donald Sterling doesn't care for black people?) (Who knows a person who is ostracized from family events because of differences of opinions and refusal to let things lie?) I suppose if one is willing to accept all consequences of their opinions and the vitriol they may receive for them, they should say what they want. For the rest of us lacking balls of steel and a take no prisoners attitude, we would be wise to keep some of our opinions to ourselves.

 

Sentinel947.

[SeattlePioneer 144]

The ideas of "Dead white European Males" have been ridiculed for decades. Yet they were trotted out and put on display rather widely in the wake of the Parish shootings. Why?

 

 

What happened last week to multiculturalism and being tolerant of the varying cultural values of diverse immigrant groups?

 

What about freedom of EXPRESSION? The Charlie Hebdo editors had their rights of freedom of expression, why should the Jihadists have their own right of free expression? Of course, that proved to be hard on some journalists, but they are the ones promoting radical concepts of freedome of expression anyway.

 

In the wake of the Fergusun, Ms episode, we have seen left wing groups use their freedom of expression with murder, arson, lotting, property destruction, assault and general mayhem directed at society as a whole.

 

"no justice, no peace!" is the liberal mantra these days. This asserts that the shouters expect to get what they want or they feel free to violate any laws they choose and violate the rights of anyone until; they get what they want.

 

 

Seems like that should have been the mantra of the Paris shooters.

 

For decades, left wingers have been blythely attacking the rights of other people while complaining constantly about THEIR rights. As demonstrated last week in Paris, that can work the other way. But until journalists and left wingers start getting shot and their heads cut off, advocacy of tolerant multiculturalism seems peachy.

 

 

But when the left wing starts getting THEIR heads cut off, suddenl;y the ideas of Dead White European Males seem to have more relevance.

 

 

[JoeBob 606]

Does anyone have the right to not be offended?

 

Where do I get one?

[Scouter99 265]

What I'm hearing in these sorts of questions is that people ought to kill a lot more people.

 

When non-violent groups get offended about something, they get chided and told to grow up, that we live in a free country (or relatively free, as Calico pointed out). When offended people blow something up, the tune changes to "responsibility."

It's the free speech version of "if you don't want to get raped, don't wear daisy dukes in mean streets."

 

Christians have been protesting Piss Christ almost as long as I've been alive, it took some Muslims shooting up Paris to get the AP's attention. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/01/07/ap_piss_christ_image_apparently_self_censored_after_charlie_hebdo_related.html

 

If Sentinel had gone and shot Andres Serrano in the head, would we be having this conversation?

[Cambridgeskip 658]

So things you have the right to do but maybe shouldn't.

 

How about the police holding an anit terrorism exercise that involves a man with a gun outside the gates of a school. AND NOT BOTHERING TO TELL THE SCHOOL IT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN

 

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Parents-anger-gunman-Cambridge-school-gates/story-25861992-detail/story.html

 

Yes. This actually happened. It happened in the catchment area for my scout group. It happened around 600 yards from my front door.

 

Now bear in mind gun culture in the UK.

 

We don't have one.

 

I know precisely one person who owns anything other than an air gun. He is a farmer who keeps a shot gun to deal with foxes. That's it. You see someone with a gun and you call the police. That's the drill.

 

Now what the article above doesn't tell you is not only was there no warning but the school happens to be one run by the Church of England (ie a Christian school) in what is a largely Muslim area of town. As levels of crass, insensitive, stupidity goes this reaches a whole new level of dumb. What the hell was going through the head of the person that made this decision?

 

You may have gathered that I am rather angry about this.