Quote:
|
Toughy, how is 'freedom of speech' a right to be 'free from insult'? Aren't those two things fundamentally incompatible? If you have a right to not be insulted doesn't that mean that you can say what you wish provided that no one is insulted? Wouldn't that preclude any speech that might give insult to someone? I can't see how it could do otherwise. Certainly, a society might choose that it is better that the majority never have to be exposed to memes which they find disagreeable but such a society cannot be said to have a right to free speech.
|
First I did not think up the 'to insult' vs 'from insult'. I heard it on, I think, the Randi Rhodes show (progressive talk radio syndicated)
Your argument and questions are a perfect example of the problem. You view free speech from a USA cultural perspective and they don't. You define free speech from that perspective and others do not.......hell France does not agree with our ideas around free speech. As Martina pointed out lots of folks define free speech from a different cultural perspective and narrative. There are few 'hard line in the sand' concepts that all cultures can agree on...or should.... such as slavery, child porn, child sex workers, don't lie, don't cheat, don't steal to name a few.
And as I said earlier and Corkey has repeated: The response to an insult (free speech) should not be one of violence in any culture. I think
no violence belongs in the 'hard line in the sand' category.....but humans are not there yet. Non-violent protest should be the response and the large majority of the response to that obnoxious crap has been non-violent.
And we should all remember the terrorist attack that killed Ambassador Stevens and the ex-seals security folks is not connected to the film.
The protests (mostly non-violent) occurring in many Islamic countries
are about that film. A 15 minutes Arabic translation of the film was shown on (right wing) Egyptian TV and that is when the protests began.
I did a lot of nodding my head yes when reading your posts.