I missed that post; which one was it?

yes, I watched the video, but I disagree entirely with the assertion that rights come with responsibilities. and, as evidence of my right to freely express myself, I will note that the typical English view on the issue of free speech is not at all like the typical American or French view on the issue.

Are they? Surely you need to be a citizen of a country or have a job or means to support yourself in a country before being allowed to live there.

German newspaper that reprinted Muhammad cartoons fire bombed here

if this were universally true then Europe would have much less to debate when it came to issues of immigration and integration.

A lot can. A lot have dual-nationality.

Was Salman Rushdie a smug cartoonist?

Was Malala Yousafzai a smug cartoonist?

Surely there's a chance that people unconnected with either of these people could get hurt if there was an attack against either of them?

Should they have toned it down a bit?

I think some people still did not get it that you can be muslim and a native european (blue eyes, white skin, blond hair and eating kartofel)....and you have rights to live in your own country.

now it is clear to me: free speech is great but should not be used for any expressions or opinions that may insult or offend religious groups. after all, people that believe in gods, unicorns and fairies should be respected. their belief is much more important than any kind of opinion.

perhaps it would be a good idea if there would be an authority that would regulate freedom so that it works for us all and we can all happily live together.

For the sake of argumentation here, I would like to recall that actually the official muslim insitution in France (the CFCM) sued Charlie Hebdo in 2007 for the cartoons.
The outcome of the prosecution (in french) was in favour of Charlie Hebdo although the judges raise the issue on only one cartoon that assimilates all muslims to terrorists. But the judges clearly stated that it's within the legal boundaries. The CFCM communicated officialy that they accept the decision. It's the same system that guarantees both the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech and that's for me the true advantage of secular democracy.

Again 99% of muslims were probably offended by the cartoons, some took legal actions and that was it. Most forgot about it....but the fanatic extremists didn't unfortunately (who are a minority). So does this make ALL muslims responsible for these violence acts? Some right-wing extremists try to mix all these events to push their own racist agenda....including in this very thread.

__________________
Resist, support, donate: ACLU
They tried to bury us, they did not know that we are seeds (Mexican proverb)

I dunno. Had anyone else made death threats or firebombed their offices? If so, then no, not just Islam. Otherwise yes. There's such a thing as not being a ****ing idiot. The Charlie Hebdo people knew what was coming and still prodded and provoked until the inevitable happened.

Well done Charlie Hebdo!

People come to Europe for a reason. Could be a job, they could be filthy rich and get residency, they could have citizenship, could be asylum, could be to study

No reason is 'I don't like where I am now. Will you take me? Pretty please?'

Well it was certainly an excellent reason for my OH's family at the time of apartheid, when the family was split into 3 racial groups who were not allowed to live together No job, no money, zilch, nothing. (later edit due to not being able to post. The concept of Asylum didn't exist in 1947/8. Father came first, then mother, chilren followed almost 2 years later- once mother and father had found jobs and lodgings- aand then move on, again and again- to survive- and then succeed.

I'd imagine that would come under asylum?

sorry, but what you have written is not an accurate statement of the facts. for example, I am pretty sure that the concept of "asylum" is premised upon the notion of "I don't like where I am now".

These convoluted discussions on Free Speech seem a little redundant given that the perpetrators aren't going to stand trial next week... They're Dead.

Surely a more pertinent discussion is to better understand, seek out and then inoculate impressionable people like the Kouachi brothers to ensure that this never happens again. Sarkozy once said that a humiliated Person is a Radicalised person. Since then what steps have been taken to reach out to all these lost citizens living in slums with 40% unemployment, crime, drugs, prostitution and bring them back to society where they can see the tangible benefits of the French values of Freedom, Liberty, Justice, equality etc.. Once you feel part of society you are more inclined to want to defend it.. warts and all.

There are material causes of this tragedy which unlike religious beliefs can be altered if the will exists. You can never stop people being angry at cartoons lampooning their faith, but you can stop it going from letter writing and street protests to outright murder.

I think it runs under the assumption that any Muslim family bothered enough about leaving the country where they enjoy all of the freedoms unavailable in Western society will probably make the effort to follow the proper processes and find work in the place they want to move to. Many will likely also have dual nationality and family roots in their respective countries of origin.

Pretty sure someone claiming asylum has to prove their life or civil liberties are at risk, rather than simply "not liking" where they live.

Being that I'm not religious, I can understand where you're coming from. But don't you think that if we truly value the freedom of speech then we should also value to the right to the freedom of belief?

The way I see it... most Muslims are Islamic because of the culture/family that they were born into (I think this is usually how religion is perpetuated). So to mock or make fun of someone for being Muslim is really quite the same as mocking or making fun of their culture.

Are we condoning, then, the mocking of someone for the culture that they were born into? Or does this only apply to Muslims?

Obviously, some people do condone the mocking of someone for their culture. But it's something that doesn't settle well with me, personally.

Of course, it should not be illegal, as that would infringe upon the freedom of speech. But at the same time, I don't think that people should be encouraged to mock others cultures and beliefs.

Sorry but asylum is for people being persecuted in their own country and shouldn't be demeaned

Erm, in Western society people do have the freedom to believe in whatever religion they want... but that has nothing to do with us having the right to then criticize or mock religion.