[cite]Posted By: Carter[/cite]Perhaps they can't be bothered to repeat a discusion that will end in them being painted as racists......
That's my point. Here was their chance to say "I hate what they say but defend their right to say regardless of their colour" Their silence is deafening.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]It did make me smile. I wonder what the native Australians are thinking about this but then who ever thinks about the "Abo's" (sic)
And before AFKA sinks the thread. Six years inside for the Danish Cartoon protesters. Glad they were convicted but 6 years? You get less than that for some murders. Where were the freedom of speech lobby then?
Henry you are being a touch disingenuous!!
Firstly the Danish cartoon protesters were themselves seeking to curb the freedom of speech and expression of the cartoonist (s)!!
Therefore why would any libertarian, democrat defend those protesters?
Secondly as has been already said the protesters were seeking to incite murder and violence which is completely contrary to the ideals of those you describe as freedom of speech right wingers.
Disingenuous? Yes perhaps. That goes along with my favorite every bit of feedback from an assessment centre when I was "cool and cerebral"
I don't expect any democrat to defend them from the left or right. The people I was referring to are those that argue that they should be allowed to make whatever statement they choose regardless of any offence or damage it may cause as it is their "freedom of speech".
I don't believe that such a freedom is absolute which is why it was good the Cartoon protesters were convicted and imprisoned. It is the principle that your fist's freedom ends where my nose begins.
However those that demand total freedom of speech for themselves often as cover to allow them to make offence and/or racist remarks would, if they were consistent, demand the same right for the Cartoon protesters. To my knowledge they have not.
My hatred of the Muslim and other fanatical religous and political groups of the left and of the right is because they would limit ALL freedom of speech, protest or belief as soon as they were able to.
[cite]Posted By: Henry Irving[/cite]Disingenuous? Yes perhaps. That goes along with my favorite every bit of feedback from an assessment centre when I was "cool and cerebral"
I don't expect any democrat to defend them from the left or right. The people I was referring to are those that argue that they should be allowed to make whatever statement they choose regardless of any offence or damage it may cause as it is their "freedom of speech".
I don't believe that such a freedom is absolute which is why it was good the Cartoon protesters were convicted and imprisoned. It is the principle that your fist's freedom ends where my nose begins.
However those that demand total freedom of speech for themselves often as cover to allow them to make offence and/or racist remarks would, if they were consistent, demand the same right for the Cartoon protesters. To my knowledge they have not.
My hatred of the Muslim and other fanatical religous and political groups of the left and of the right is because they would limit ALL freedom of speech, protest or belief as soon as they were able to.
I do think that there is a clear distinction between freedom of speech which expresses politically incorrect, even offensive opinions and freedom of speech which incites others to acts of murder and violence.
If we wish to live in a civilised society then we have to have laws prohibiting murder and violence and by definition incitement to those acts.
If we wish to live in a free society then we must be allowed to speak up against the prevailing political orthodoxy even if to do so offends. It is then up to the prevailing political orthodoxy to win their case by the sense and logic of their arguments at the ballot box.
I therefore disagree with you that there is an inconsistency in the freedom of speech guys not defending the cartoon protesters since, as I have tried to illustrate, we are discussing two separate things.
Comments
That's my point. Here was their chance to say "I hate what they say but defend their right to say regardless of their colour" Their silence is deafening.
Henry you are being a touch disingenuous!!
Firstly the Danish cartoon protesters were themselves seeking to curb the freedom of speech and expression of the cartoonist (s)!!
Therefore why would any libertarian, democrat defend those protesters?
Secondly as has been already said the protesters were seeking to incite murder and violence which is completely contrary to the ideals of those you describe as freedom of speech right wingers.
I wasn't going to bite but I have:-)
I don't expect any democrat to defend them from the left or right. The people I was referring to are those that argue that they should be allowed to make whatever statement they choose regardless of any offence or damage it may cause as it is their "freedom of speech".
I don't believe that such a freedom is absolute which is why it was good the Cartoon protesters were convicted and imprisoned. It is the principle that your fist's freedom ends where my nose begins.
However those that demand total freedom of speech for themselves often as cover to allow them to make offence and/or racist remarks would, if they were consistent, demand the same right for the Cartoon protesters. To my knowledge they have not.
My hatred of the Muslim and other fanatical religous and political groups of the left and of the right is because they would limit ALL freedom of speech, protest or belief as soon as they were able to.
I do think that there is a clear distinction between freedom of speech which expresses politically incorrect, even offensive opinions and freedom of speech which incites others to acts of murder and violence.
If we wish to live in a civilised society then we have to have laws prohibiting murder and violence and by definition incitement to those acts.
If we wish to live in a free society then we must be allowed to speak up against the prevailing political orthodoxy even if to do so offends. It is then up to the prevailing political orthodoxy to win their case by the sense and logic of their arguments at the ballot box.
I therefore disagree with you that there is an inconsistency in the freedom of speech guys not defending the cartoon protesters since, as I have tried to illustrate, we are discussing two separate things.