Know that you are talking with me, a person who's a real fervent of freedom of speech, to the point I accept people having racist/xenophobic views and like to c

Know that you are talking with me, a person who's a real fervent of freedom of speech, to the point I accept people having racist/xenophobic views and like to chat them up. Of my good friends is a dude from the U.S. who held views on a demographic that's supposed to include me, that would shock people. I found them funny, while most people would've accused him of racism. Anyway, back to the topic: Confusion is not a part of it. I'm more irritated by sophism and syllogism behind/(to justify) the actions and the hypocrisy behind it all, than by the actions themselves. In other words, I understand that someone acts a certain way, even if nasty. As long as they don't try to justify it, once they try... What do I mean? I'll give three examples: 1- Censorship: Censorship assumes that some piece of information shouldn't be available to a certain demographic because (in most cases) the censor thinks it would "corrupt" the people he's trying to "protect". So he insulates them. If that were true (that a piece of information can do that), then the Censor would be the most corrupt person, since he's exposed to all the pieces that cause someone to become corrupt. - "But he's a censor, it's his job and he's not being corrupted". - "So someone can be exposed to these pieces of information and not be corrupted!". - "No, just him. The people can't look at it, it's dangerous". - "But the censor comes from the people." - "Yeah, but it's different." 2 - Kings and members of the Clergy in Europe back in the day. "Mandatad by God" to rule and defend Christian religion. Kill and torture people for fornication and adultery. Engage in orgies and anchored the word "incest" with "royalty" in the collective mind. 3 - Islamist terrorists who, again, reproach to people "not being religious" and then do the very contrary of what they "stand for" -killing, raping, having sex with each other ("but.. but.. You kill people who're gay!" - "No.. It's different"), being ignorant (knowing that the first verse that came in Quran was this: "Read"). Where does all this lead us? >So, the law assumes that critisizing and making fun of the idea is something different than making fun or attacking the person believing it. Well, that's the official rhetoric to make it look as if freedom of speech is a reality. The making fun and the attacking isn't equally distributed for reasons people prefer to avoid because it makes them uncomfortable. The law states that it's okay to make fun of everyone, but the law is just a text on paper.. What about the application of the law in real life? The law also states that people are accountable, etc. What if you have a problem with a really high-ranking official, or someone powerful? Do you believe it'd be treated as "just the same as if you had a problem with your plumber". The law says yes. Reality says no. You're talking about the law, I'm talking about the way a law is applied in real life. Look at stories about Government surveillance. What about the CEO of a Telco company who didn't want to give his customers' data to the Government? Prison for 4 years, if I recall correctly. Look at journalists busting these stories.. Held up in airports, harrassed, etc.. This isn't happening in a "third world" country. This is happening in countries that criticize other countries as not having free speech, while tormenting their their own citizens for exerting that right. In other words, they make a distinction between "other backward totalitarian" countries who say "This is what you can't say", and themselves who say "You can say anything you want * (but we'll smak your teeth if you say the wrong thing)". >The same can not be told about racist or antisemitic statements (which both are regularely condemned) Why? They're so much fun. The thing my Texan friend said was a joke: "You know, Muslims invented the condom from animal intestines.. But the English improved it by removing the intestines from the animal before using them". I don't know about you, but I found it hilarious. And I was raised Muslim. The funny thing is that other people were shocked. I'm probably the guy who'll go to hell and suffer Eternal Damnation by any religion's standards, so I told the joke to my observant friends, and they all busted laughing. I found that we live in an era where everyone is so susceptible and hush hush. Nobody can speak freely in these illusory freedom of expression times. >Any cartoonist can make fun of the jewish religion, and jews themselves do so regularely. Yeah, well everyone has something that make them tick. For Muslims, they pretty much don't care about anything(there are even jokes about misinterpreting religious concepts, usually salacious jokes or jokes to make fun of hypocrit religious people, etc), unless it's a Prophet. And here's the thing: People think that Muslims don't like people making fun of their Prophet, which is wrong.. They don't like people making fun of / or depicting any Prophet in a bad light, (One of the pillars is that you can't be "religious/observant/faithful" in Islam if you don't believe in all of them. The other pillars are that you have to believe in the other Books, the Angels, God, Judgement Day, and Fate (good or bad)). >It is a fine line, but it has historical reasons and it worked fairly well for the last century. As in most things, it depends who you ask. Some might wonder a country who murdered millions in the last century (not even needing a "war") might care about freedom of speech. For those who might see gratuitous jabs on things of the past, suffice to say that France not only didn't want to appologize for what it did, it recently had a bill proposal for the "Positive effects of Colonialism". Because almost exterminating a people, and throwing a country that had thousands of baths before Christ, home to Fibonacci who exported the right numerals to Europe to replace Roman numerals, go back a few thousand years back is cool. As I said, I'm more irritated by the bullshit to get away with something, than the actual thing. I understand "Realism" in the Machiavellian/International Relations sense, but don't stand a rhetoric weak enough that a layman such as myself can pick it up, from people supposed to be fine diplomats. It's sort of insulting.. But again, you're free to express your mind.