Submitted by Anonymous Source on Sat, 03/04/2006 - 10:27am.
1) The idea that the founder of Islam was a pedophile isn't new. Instead of quashing free speech I'd be more inclined to chide them for being unoriginal. He took little girls for wives. Everybody knows that, including the Muslims, so we can move on.
2) All religions are based fairy tales taken way too seriously. Those of us who know that are used to being told we can't say these things but it doesn't make it right.
3)..and most salient, the very essence of free speech is the ability to say things that are unpopular. The "freedom" to say what everyone wants to hear is NOT free speech: you can do that in every country in the world including the most repressive of Islamic theocracies. Again, that is NOT free speech.
If you cannot say or write things that will make people angry, then you do not have freedom of speech - and that's a fact, like it or not.
If you make statements such as, "It was amazing to me that they were allowed to publish this kind of stuff," you are demonstrating that you do not believe in free speech, but instead you believe in censored speech that is tailored to avoid offense. That's certainly the "free speech" standard of every repressive theocracy and dictatorship in the world, but America should try to be better than that.
If someone wants to be outraged and perhaps threaten violence because of what someone else says - THEY are the ones with the problem, not the person expressing an opinion.
1) The idea that the founder of Islam was a pedophile isn't new. Instead of quashing free speech I'd be more inclined to chide them for being unoriginal. He took little girls for wives. Everybody knows that, including the Muslims, so we can move on.
2) All religions are based fairy tales taken way too seriously. Those of us who know that are used to being told we can't say these things but it doesn't make it right.
3)..and most salient, the very essence of free speech is the ability to say things that are unpopular. The "freedom" to say what everyone wants to hear is NOT free speech: you can do that in every country in the world including the most repressive of Islamic theocracies. Again, that is NOT free speech.
If you cannot say or write things that will make people angry, then you do not have freedom of speech - and that's a fact, like it or not.
If you make statements such as, "It was amazing to me that they were allowed to publish this kind of stuff," you are demonstrating that you do not believe in free speech, but instead you believe in censored speech that is tailored to avoid offense. That's certainly the "free speech" standard of every repressive theocracy and dictatorship in the world, but America should try to be better than that.
If someone wants to be outraged and perhaps threaten violence because of what someone else says - THEY are the ones with the problem, not the person expressing an opinion.