Main Page Contact Register Log In

I'm not sure it can be considered "peaceful protest". It may be more comparable to protesting against pro-lifers by having unprotected sex and getting an abortion. Or protesting against vegetarians by killing animals. You're doing something that you don't consider harmful. If you consider this "peaceful protest", then you'll also have to consider it peaceful protest when they do things that they think are fine but you don't.

I'm not in favor of banning images of Muhammad. We can't respect everyone's beliefs all the time. But I don't think this is a free speech issue. We don't automatically have the right to disrespect everyone's beliefs. In fact, the things we're not allowed to do are precisely because there are so many people that consider it wrong.

If you make it impossible for someone to show they don't like muslims, that's violating free speech. If you make it inconvenient, so that they do it less often and it looks like people like muslims, that's violating free speech. But you don't need to draw pictures of Muhammad to say that you don't like muslims. It can be part of many things that together violate free speech, but on its own it does not.

Killing animals just for the sake of it can be illegal in itself and I believe it doesn't get a special pass if it is part of a speech (if you do it "cleanly" it might be within legality).

For what I understand there is no duty for anyone to respect anyone elses beliefs (I am a little fuzzy on if there is a duty to respect your own beliefs). There are rules about interfering others communications but that is slightly different.

Whether a action is peaceful or not is not and should not be a question of opinion. You do not require peoples consent to talk about them.

I don't get how "it looks like people like Muslims" is anyhow relevant and needs to be mentioned. Things should not go any different if people didn't like muslims.

If I can write about muslims or I can draw about muslims but writing is more inconvenient for me because I am a professional drawer then forcing me to use writing if I want to have Muhammad as my subject is the kind of limitation of speech you explicitly mention. If that religious group can make a one-sided announcement that using that medium to talk about their subject matter should not be done, what are the limits of this power. Can a company say that they can't be internet forum posted about? Can cults say they can't be made documentaries about?

You can't found a religion that has murder as part of its rituals to evade prosecution. Why would it be okay to give legistative power concerning the freedom of speech? For example some drug laws have this kind of exception. The legal technology exists but it usually is not employed in freedom of speech,. And I think this is not a mistake but a deliberate omission. That is nobody has the power to make official taboos.

Now its perfectly legimate for muslisms to show their upsetness within the broad class of speech. But they need to be able to win their battle on the level of rethoric. That they get upset is not an error state from the perspective of society. If they commit assaults, murders or other crimes that is. It is also perfectly legimate if muslims call out rest of western society for not condemning that kind of tasteless speech. But even if we issue dismissing speech about it there is no basis to issue any sentences (or make laws that would find a similar future act illegal).

Freedom of speech is not limited to only some special class of "societal interest" althought those are a big motivation to have gotten the law in place. And in fact it is content-blind in that rather than being a list of positive contents that are protected it applies to all but select few negative forms/contents are excluded form it meaning that speech that was untought off is protected until we modify our sense of freedom of speech (such as finding more things to exclude from it). Again I think this is not accidental. If we encounter some weird thing we don't know how to handle atleast we can talk about how to handle it as a society. Xenophobia is not a valid reason to suspend freedom of speech.
Replies (0)