kittycat1

Is it really too much to ask to live and let live?

Charismatic

I dislike the term “inciting hatred” because it’s too ambiguous and legitimises violence against those who do speak out on contentious issues . We should never offer legitimisation to who use or threaten to use violence to try and subvert or repress free speech.

For me there is never any excuse to curb freedom of speech, after all it’s not that free if you have to be careful not to offend anyone with what you say. You might not like what someone says, it may be irrational or unethical but if your first thought of retort is violent escalation then you have no place amongst a civilised society.

Charismatic

Apparently so for some people .

Hello.Kitty

Following that logic, if I were to come right up to you, say, and insult whatever you held dearest, be it partner, kids, morals or beliefs, would you be able to look at what I had just said objectively and congratulate me on exercising my right to free speech, or would you rather bop me one?

With rights come responsibilities and with our right to free speech comes the responsibility to exercise discretion before our words or actions are conveyed.

If we want people to show us respect, then we must respect other people.

That said, if you really want to say something, then by all means do so, but at least have the conviction to stand by it, even if it means getting bopped.

Loaf n Jug

Have you ever seen the movie Deliverance? Have you ever been to rural Florida? The baptist snake handlers set up circus tents next the Piggly Wiggly's on Friday nights and it sound like there's a riot going on in there all night with their dancing, convulsing and speaking in tongues. These sister bangin hillbillies are not normal people.

Charismatic

I’d probably laugh at you and congratulate you on your bravery . Verbal assault is all fair game in my view.

seven seas

I'm alwasy a bit ashamed when my fellow atheists indulge in provocation in the name of defending free speech.

benzonar

Norm_uk

So is burning the flag of my country or the flag of my allies countries or delcaring Hitler was cool or that a certain ideology posing as a religion is going to take over the world by fair means or foul...it's provocative to stone women to death for adultery and it's provocative to hold national "Death to America and Israel days" too.

Burning books is silly at best but it's just a book...and a bad one at that. The more the world sees how nutters behave the fewer nutters we will have in the future...and the more normal people will stop defending beliefs that shelter such morons.

Norm_uk

Actually freedom of speech includes allowing idiots to do things like this. It includes the right to offend and be offended. A wise person in a free society won't offend deliberately because he or she would prefer to be liked and respected...however even when an idiot burns a book under no circumstances is it acceptable to accept that violence is an appropriate response!

Norm_uk

I am thick skinned and grown up enough not to throw punches just because someone gets in my face and insults all I hold near and dear.

As for respect - I only give that to people who are worthy of it...not to people who subscribe to mysogynistic dogmatic ideologies which are opposed to my way of life. Indeed in everyday we should try to be well mannered and calm to each other but I don't see what's the incentive to be nice to a piranha.

Norm_uk

And when people make videos like this but directed at Islam instead of Christianity they are despised...even by their own people.

Makes no sense why one group should be immune to piss taking just because they threaten violence when offended. Good example of double standards.

littlejimmy

I can agree with most of what you say, Norm, but the book burning was still a ****ing crazy idea, whichever way you look at it. We are where we are, and we can't change the here and now. Unfortunately, not everyone is as coolly level-headed as us who were lucky enough to be born in the secular West. This is not an argument about the rights and wrongs of one religion or a defence of one over the other, it's about provocation, and that's the bottom line. I know, for instance, that football tribalism is stupid and childish, and I wouldn't walk into a Rangers pub wearing green and white hoops because I know that there's a good chance I'd be chinned.

The best thing that can come out of this, as you say, is that people will see that it's one bunch of nutters winding up other nutters. No-one is coming out of this with any credit.

Hello.Kitty

sure, but book-burning is surely an act of intellectual violence and this one is in response to what? The opening of a building? Whoop-dee-do. Measured responses never got a look-in here. This particular "act of free speech" is purely intended to stir up strong feelings amongst a group that the "speaker" already holds in contempt.

It serves no purpose in proving a point.

I also think that if anyone stands by the idea of everyone's right to free speech, it shouldn't come with caveats such as "as long as it's not against homosexuals/ women/ X ethnicity / Y religion" or with exemptions like "ah, yes, but not by those who are opposed to my way of life".

flares

I'm sure a few bibles were toasted in Malaysia recently.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8451630.stm