indeed it comes under many different assumptions and is usually easier said than done. It isn't the case of just turning up to the border.

Muslims don't have an 'Israel' like Jewish people do that will accept them with open arms.

Regardless of the right to the freedom of speech, the ways in which one chooses to utilize that freedom is still a matter of free will and should not be exempt from judgment.

For example, regardless of the laws regarding free speech, would we still consider it "moral" for someone to go up to a Muslim man in the US and call him a "muck muck?" Or for a Nazi skinhead to go up to a Jewish person and accuse him of destroying our species?

I still see it as hypocritical to defend the freedom of speech while, at the same time, condoning the attacking of someone's culture and/or beliefs. Because how can we place any real, universal value on the freedom of speech if we don't also place value on diversity?

If you stop doing things because of death threats you settling a precedent to anyone who isn't happy with anything you are doing. You let them win by shutting you up.

Malala is a good example.

While I don't agree everything should be said, I believe we should all have the right to do so. We are lucky to live in such countries.

No, that is direct racism, and not covered under freedom of speech laws. Any more pearls of wis-dim?

Oh, for sure. Of course we should have the right. But everything we do has consequences - some greater than others.

If I call my boss a monkey, then I'll probably lose my job. If I slag off my home town, then I probably won't get a Swiss passport. If I insult the lads at the local Stammtisch, I'll probably get a good kicking. If I repeatedly draw cartoons mocking Islam, then I'll probably get killed, along with anyone else who gets in the way.

None of this should be any kind of surprise to anyone older than 6.

You mean like people on this forum do to the Swiss culture (almost*) every single day?


*Put in for the pedants who don't like absolutes and I really don't have time to read every post ever written.

I agree, I think French society should have behaved better towards the ghetto dwellers. When you look at Muslims in other EU countries, they lead much better lives. Why are the French Muslims so down trodden?

Being young, white, female and wear a short skirt in Bradford so deserve to be slagged off?

None of this should be any kind of surprise to anyone older than 6 so I'm sure you'll understand my sentiments.

I realized, after I posted that, that I should have used different examples. I believe I even went back and edited it.

Still... are you saying that the freedom of speech should not apply to one's race but can apply to one's religion?

That seems hypocritical to me. No one can choose their race, and most cannot choose their culture.

Malala wanted the right for girls to go to school. She got shot in the head for it. She still fight for it today and the money she got for the Nobel price is used for the schools.

Now, you could say that wanting school for girls is different than drawing offensive caricatures. For us, yes. For extremists, not at all.

Today is the caricatures, if we stop, what will it be tomorrow?

What do you mean "we"?

I haven't drawn any offensive cartoons in the name of "Free Speech" recently. Have you?

There's a bit of a difference between wearing a short skirt in Bradford and deliberately, after several warnings and threats, drawing and publishing provocative cartoons which you know are going to end in tears.

Marseille has an estimated 30 to 40 percent Muslim population and has been ranked as the most dangerous city in Europe. Coincidence? Of course not. Muslim immigrants also make up the vast majority of Frances prison inmates.

France has suffered particularly badly with mass influx of of unskilled and uneducated immigrants, many of which are capable of contributing little, if anything, to society, and certainly aren't interested in preserving the French culture and way of life, which as we all know the French are particularly (and understandably) protective of.

So, thinking logically, it's not hard to figure out why there is opposition and conflict within the country.

Do you even know what you are talking about? I'm certainly having trouble making sense of it.

Yeah yeah, them.

Do you really think that something like accusing a culture of staring too much or not being friendly enough can be equated with mocking and attacking someone's religious beliefs?

take the example of the lovely art work piss christ. it was offensive to many christians. death threats were made towards museums and employees of the museums that showed the work. never was the questions of christians, as a whole, being to blame for the threats.

cultures, religions and whatever else people hold dear are mocked and ridiculed all the time. we have a right to produce things that are religious in theme, that are anti-religious in theme. we have a right to disagree with these things, to argue them and to reject them personally and within our lives, culture, etc. we also have a right to continue to produce things regardless and to continue to believe in what we choose regardless. the minute we start to limit what can be produced and what can be rejected (meaning speech and religion) we are in big trouble. the minute you begin to limit freedom of speech, it is inevitable you will begin to limit freedom of religion and vice versa. after all, it is pretty much one and the same in the end.

__________________
'there isn't enough of anything as long as we live.
but at intervals a sweetness appears and, given a chance prevails'

You didn't write "religious beliefs". You wrote "culture".

So the best way to remedy the situation is to mock them and what they believe in?

Very much so. Why is it deemed (rather by law or de facto) okay to mock someone's religion but NOT to mock their race? (I ask this with an open mind... because I truly cannot distinguish why there should be much of a difference).

The question is whether it is worth it or not. The whole world knows now what Charlie Hebdo says on the topic, most of us have realized that there are other opinions about it, and some of us even accept divergent opinions.

There is no need to agree with Charlie Hebdo's ways to defend the right to have a way of expressing ideas within the accepted freedom of speech in context, here France. Not agreeing with France is another topic. No wonder fundamentalists don't get the point, but people in EF should get it: it's not about agreeing, it's about accepting.

As long as Charlie Hebdo can publish in peace, nothing stands in the way of criticizing them and question their views in the public debate. Not the fight is the problem, the gun is.

__________________
Es wird nichts ausgelassen, um mich hier herauszuekeln. Ein Lehrbuch. False accusations and attacks continue. There is no stopping righteous people when they are wrong.

I actually very much agree with you and appreciate what you wrote. I'm not implying that we should limit (by law) the freedom of speech -- (though I do believe we already have). I am only suggesting that perhaps we ought to use our better judgment before utilizing it.

Now, I realize that some people (perhaps many) do "get off" on attacking and/or offending the beliefs, etc. of others. But I am not one of them. I guess this is the reason why it's so difficult for me to understand, relate to, or appreciate this mentality.

No offence Pancakes, but I'm not going to spend time and energy debating it with you on that level. Feel free to do you own research or find someone else to help you to muddle your way through the differences between calling someone a racial slur to their face, and expressing critical opinions through public media.