4 ms·

Just because someone doesn't take your side in debate does not necessarily mean they took some other non affiliated point of view.

by Guthur 12y ago

MrBuddyCasino 12y ago
One could argue that he did, indirectly. Freedom of speech means exactly that - the freedom to say whatever you want, within the margins allowed by the law, regardless of how it could be perceived by some specific group of people. Somebody is always going to be offended, I think el-Hamdoon missed the whole point. What he could have said instead, but didn't, is this: "While I find the cover disgusting, freedom of speech protects their right to publish this, and they should not fear for their lives because of it."
- Guthur 12y ago
  "Within the margins of law" So it's not completely free. There is a hate speech law in France. So there are limits to speech and many people might find them acceptable limits.
  - chernevik 12y ago
    Thank you for the excellent example of why hate speech laws are such a terrible idea.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- sfjailbird 12y ago
  > Freedom of speech means exactly that - the freedom to say whatever you want ... regardless of how it could be perceived by some specific group of people No. You can't publish porn freely. Why? Because some people find it offensive. It's not that simple.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    Or maybe it is. What makes you uncritically accept those restrictions as not violating free speech? Just because the countries that impose them happen to claim they support free speech?
chernevik 12y ago
From the article -- Omer el-Hamdoon:"what’s happening here is not that different from what we witnessed back in 2005 with the Danish cartoons when media outlets went into a cycle of just publishing the cartoons just to show defiance. And what that caused is more offence." It's pretty clear that the likes of Mr. el-Hamdoon want it both ways. They want to sound supportive of free speech, but they want that speech curtailed to their liking. No, they wouldn't kill anyone themselves. Yes, they are fostering a dangerous notion of "incorrect" speech that is very dangerous to the whole idea of free speech. Those dangers are so obvious that it is very hard to assign good faith to those preaching it.

Just because someone doesn't take your side in debate does not necessarily mean they took some other non affiliated point of view.

by Guthur 12y ago

Just because someone doesn't take your side in debate does not necessarily mean they took some other non affiliated point of view.

MrBuddyCasino 12y ago

One could argue that he did, indirectly. Freedom of speech means exactly that - the freedom to say whatever you want, within the margins allowed by the law, regardless of how it could be perceived by some specific group of people. Somebody is always going to be offended, I think el-Hamdoon missed the whole point. What he could have said instead, but didn't, is this: "While I find the cover disgusting, freedom of speech protects their right to publish this, and they should not fear for their lives because of it."

Guthur 12y ago
"Within the margins of law" So it's not completely free. There is a hate speech law in France. So there are limits to speech and many people might find them acceptable limits.
- chernevik 12y ago
  Thank you for the excellent example of why hate speech laws are such a terrible idea.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
sfjailbird 12y ago
> Freedom of speech means exactly that - the freedom to say whatever you want ... regardless of how it could be perceived by some specific group of people No. You can't publish porn freely. Why? Because some people find it offensive. It's not that simple.
- icebraining 12y ago
  Or maybe it is. What makes you uncritically accept those restrictions as not violating free speech? Just because the countries that impose them happen to claim they support free speech?

chernevik 12y ago

From the article -- Omer el-Hamdoon:"what’s happening here is not that different from what we witnessed back in 2005 with the Danish cartoons when media outlets went into a cycle of just publishing the cartoons just to show defiance. And what that caused is more offence." It's pretty clear that the likes of Mr. el-Hamdoon want it both ways. They want to sound supportive of free speech, but they want that speech curtailed to their liking. No, they wouldn't kill anyone themselves. Yes, they are fostering a dangerous notion of "incorrect" speech that is very dangerous to the whole idea of free speech. Those dangers are so obvious that it is very hard to assign good faith to those preaching it.