What should come first Public/religious sentiments or Freedom of Speech?

[Bigboii]

In light of the recent debate over preferential treatment in Europe towards Jewish population where certain laws are in place where people cant denounce holocaust and if they do they can be jailed/punished and Muslims feeling that same privilege's are not extended to them when people make cartoons of Prophet PBUH

So this deserves a debate

My opinions are and I know I am in the minority but what if we just make all of it legal criticism of Jews/ holocausts, cartoon of Muhammad PBUH
cause I think we can't ban everything because Islam is an "idea" (for non Muslims at least) and any idea can be criticized ,made fun of

So where can we draw the line between criticism of an idea and public sentiments so I personally think don't even draw a line in the first place

I am genuinely curious what do people think about this? Freedom of speech > Public sentiment (remember it should be applicable to every idea/ religion not just Islam like it is right know)

 

[Gilly]

You are comparing apples to cheese, Holocaust is not a religion, Jews were not the only people killed by the nazis in the holocaust.

 

[Bigboii]

You are comparing apples to cheese, Holocaust is not a religion, Jews were not the only people killed by the nazis in the holocaust.

No I am discussing the wider concept (bigger than religion) of what should come first

Freedom of expression or Public sentiments

 

[Pakpak]

Free speech. What offends people will change time to time.

 

[Gilly]

No I am discussing the wider concept (bigger than religion) of what should come first

Freedom of expression or Public sentiments

The holocaust was not only jews, they were the majority but the nazis were killing anyone that didnt fit or agree with there policy.

Islam has the same protection as all other religions.

 

[Rinnegan Sasuke]

Free speech. What offends people will change time to time.

Seconded.

 

[Nadeemp]

Seconded.

ditto

 

[CricketCartoons]

freedom speech was fine as long as it was used to criticize those in power, like the govt. but it has become a tool for trolls and anarchists to just spread disorder. Should there be freedom to mock someone's dead family members? Should there be freedom to go and draw provocative cartoons of someone's family members?

There should be strict laws to punish these anarchists, and if there is no law, then there will be vigilantism from individuals who take matters in their own hands.

 

[El Generico]

Should be a difference between free speech and hate speech. If something is solely done to incite hate or violence then it should be banned.

 

[Gilly]

Should be a difference between free speech and hate speech. If something is solely done to incite hate or violence then it should be banned.

There already is.

 

[sweep_shot]

I think it is not black and white.

If freedom of speech causes extreme public reaction, it is better to have certain rules (what's allowed and what's not). Public harmony shouldn't be disturbed.

 

[Gilly]

I think it is not black and white.

If freedom of speech causes extreme public reaction, it is better to have certain rules (what's allowed and what's not). Public harmony shouldn't be disturbed.

I think the whole issue is can people draw pictures or insult Muhammad.

If you do make a law to stop that then it would mean that no one can insult anyone from the last 1500 years.

 

[DeadlyVenom]

Its sad to see a concept as beautiful as free speech being hijaked by this band of low grade extremists who seek to publish cartoons to hurt each other.

The issue is not criticisms of the Prophet (saw). The western world has criticised him for over 1500 years in various form of literature.

However these modern secularists have sought to go beyond criticism and have crossed into the realm of obscene insults. There is nothing to be gained from these cartoons, literally nothing.

Freedon of speech is designed to allow people to challenge their governments and protest. I doubt very much that people fought for this right to allow obscene cartoons to be drawn.

Obscenities about sacred figures ( no matter the religion) should not be condoned.

 

[ElRaja]

freedom of speech should come first, but it wont happen, people are far too sensitive about having their views challenged, especially in the internet age where people greatly under estimate how little they don't know (dunning kruger)

when you put religion into the mix then agitators can easily manipulate and guilt gullible people into acting out violently against perceived slanders.

there is no point in freedom of speech if one group actually consider you saying something in particular as being morally wrong. best to just shut your mouth and live your life.

 

[Third_Umpire]

Free speech now and forever. Religious sentiment will eventually go away as religions die, the spirit of free speech will continue to define society long after.

 

[Robert]

In light of the recent debate over preferential treatment in Europe towards Jewish population where certain laws are in place where people cant denounce holocaust and if they do they can be jailed/punished and Muslims feeling that same privilege's are not extended to them when people make cartoons of Prophet PBUH

So this deserves a debate

My opinions are and I know I am in the minority but what if we just make all of it legal criticism of Jews/ holocausts, cartoon of Muhammad PBUH
cause I think we can't ban everything because Islam is an "idea" (for non Muslims at least) and any idea can be criticized ,made fun of

So where can we draw the line between criticism of an idea and public sentiments so I personally think don't even draw a line in the first place

I am genuinely curious what do people think about this? Freedom of speech > Public sentiment (remember it should be applicable to every idea/ religion not just Islam like it is right know)

The German people enacted their Holocaust denial ban because they insist on facing their past and owning it. They will not allow conspiracy theorists to minimise or deny their history, to ensure that Nazism cannot take root again.

The French, I guess, likewise accept the complicity of the Vichy regime in the Holocaust.

Remember that of the entire death toll of the Holocaust, less that 50% of the victims were Jews. Anyone considered ‘different’ to the arbitrary Aryan ideal could be put to death - people of colour, Slavs, Gypsies, homosexuals, disabled, Catholics, Jehovah’s Witnesses, leftists, Freemasons.

 

[uberkoen]

Free speech without a doubt. However, hate speech should not be allowed. There should be laws in place that prohibit the incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion or similar grounds is hateful and should not be allowed.

What is important here is to understand that laws should be generic and not aimed at protecting a particular religion or community. Hate speech should be defined as that which incites violence due to the threatening nature of the speech and not just because it hurts sentiments.

 

[Technics 1210]

The Holocaust denial laws are their to protect a story that is the justification of Isreal. If it weren't for the Holocaust there would be no Isreal. Don't fall for the line that denial laws are there to prevent the rise of Nazism. You do NOT need a law to protect the truth. Holocaust denial laws do not just punish action, but also the mere questioning, and thinking of it!

On top of this you can also be charged with anti-Semitism. I can mock all religions, but Judaism gets the extra protection under anti-racsim laws because Jews are considered a race.

Don't believe the tripe that all religions are extended the same courtesy and protection by law in the West, they don't.

Oh, freedom of speech means the right to criticise your government without any fear, hinderance, and consequences. This is it.

Everything else is policed. In fact, in USA recently, social media platforms are censoring what you can say, not say. Why, in USA, where you have 'free speech' as a constituional right, does FB ban user from posting any material on Holocaust denial? Last time I checked USA wasn't in Europe.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

I think the whole issue is can people draw pictures or insult Muhammad.

If you do make a law to stop that then it would mean that no one can insult anyone from the last 1500 years.

Of course they can, they can insult Christian, Sikh and Hindu holy figures.