Pope on Charlie Hebdo: There are limits to free expression

[Wilikon]

"If my good friend Dr. Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch," Francis said, throwing a pretend punch his way. "It's normal. You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others."

Many people around the world have defended the right of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo to publish inflammatory cartoons of the Prophet Muhammed in the wake of the massacre by Islamic extremists at its Paris offices and subsequent attack on a kosher supermarket in which three gunmen killed 17 people.

But recently the Vatican and four prominent French imams issued a joint declaration that denounced the attacks but also urged the media to treat religions with respect.

Francis, who has urged Muslim leaders in particular to speak out against Islamic extremism, went a step further when asked by a French journalist about whether there were limits when freedom of expression meets freedom of religion.

Francis insisted that it was an "aberration" to kill in the name of God and said religion can never be used to justify violence.

But he said there was a limit to free speech when it concerned offending someone's religious beliefs.

"There are so many people who speak badly about religions or other religions, who make fun of them, who make a game out of the religions of others," he said. "They are provocateurs. And what happens to them is what would happen to Dr. Gasparri if he says a curse word against my mother. There is a limit."

In the wake of the Paris attacks, the Vatican has sought to downplay reports that it is a potential target for Islamic extremists, saying it is being vigilant but has received no specific threat.

Francis said he was concerned primarily for the faithful, and said he had spoken to Vatican security officials who are taking "prudent and secure measures."

"I am worried, but you know I have a defect: a good dose of carelessness. I'm careless about these things," he said. But he admitted that in his prayers, he had asked that if something were to happen to him that "it doesn't hurt, because I'm not very courageous when it comes to pain. I'm very timid."

He added, "I'm in God's hands."


http://news.yahoo.com/pope-charlie-hebdo-limits-free-expression-121639260.html


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[jaysabi]

At least the church is being consistent?

Also, it seems the "freedom of expression" France has become such a big fan of recently has limitations as well: French comedian to be tried after Charlie Hebdo gag

Freedom of expression! (...as long as it's approved of expression.)

[Wilikon]

At least the church is being consistent?

Also, it seems the "freedom of expression" France has become such a big fan of recently has limitations as well: French comedian to be tried after Charlie Hebdo gag

Freedom of expression! (...as long as it's approved of expression.)

Some freedom of expression are freer for some, not much for Dieudo!!!!!!

Vive la France.

[CIYAM]

Personally I think it is odd that people think that it is "so important that we should (or should not) be allowed to insult each other" to the point that they think we should start wars over it.

Can't any of these people do something more productive with their lives?

(I am an atheist but I have no interest in either trying to force my view upon others nor ridicule their beliefs)

A "bumper sticker" I saw in some American movie I can't recall the name of right now comes to mind: "Kill 'em all and let God sort them out". This seems to unfortunately be the way things are becoming with the more radical extremes that we are seeing.

It seems that we need a huge "chill pill" to make people remember that humans are actually a "single species".

[pedrog]

[Lethn]

You either support freedom of expression or don't, as far as I'm concerned there is no middle ground, I don't think they should have arrested that 'comedian' either ( note my sarcastic finger quotes ) because if they're going to do that then why don't they go and arrest the Christians that go around ranting about homosexuals all the time or attack scientists just for writing about scientific evidence?

I was wondering whether this new pope everybody liked was too good to be true, even Jon Stewart was making this point about france having a rally about freedom of expression and speech then suddenly deciding it was okay to arrest the guy for making a comment on facebook.

I'm not the kind of person who likes to arrest stupid people, I prefer to give them a megaphone so everyone knows just how stupid they are 

[freedomno1]

I'm with the Pope they built a tinder
They were given a warning then sparked a flame in their own ignorance
Would not say it serves them right but they did have it coming.

--

Others, though, have noted that in virtually all societies, freedom of speech has its limits, from laws against Holocaust denial to racially motivated hate speech.

But he said there was a limit to free speech when it concerned offending someone's religious beliefs.

"There are so many people who speak badly about religions or other religions, who make fun of them, who make a game out of the religions of others," he said. "They are provocateurs. And what happens to them is what would happen to Dr. Gasparri if he says a curse word against my mother. There is a limit."

--

[jaysabi]

Personally I think it is odd that people think that it is "so important that we should (or should not) be allowed to insult each other" to the point that they think we should start wars over it.

The freedom of speech thing is a black and white issue. Either you have it, or you don't. If you don't, then you have all the gray area over what is acceptable to say and what isn't. But the people on the freedom of speech side, from my perspective, are not trying to start wars. Perhaps, if you were to take the worst view of them, they are intentionally trying to insult, rather than just doubling down on their freedom of expression in the face of those who would silence them with violence. But even if this were true- that they were intentionally trying to insult- I've yet to see a compelling argument for making insulting speech illegal.

[CIYAM]

But even if this were true- that they were intentionally trying to insult- I've yet to see a compelling argument for making insulting speech illegal.

Of course it would make little sense to me that even hateful comments should be "illegal" - the simple point is that I can just say "you are a fucking cunt" and if seemingly I have some sort of "voice" (perhaps due to being a Legendary Member) then now we have a problem which if I didn't say such a thing wouldn't be the case would it.

Of course to make it a bit more hurtful I should do it like this:

You are a fucking cunt!

[jaysabi]

But even if this were true- that they were intentionally trying to insult- I've yet to see a compelling argument for making insulting speech illegal.

Of course it would make little sense to me that even hateful comments should be "illegal" - the simple point is that I can just say "you are a fucking cunt" and if seemingly I have some sort of "voice" (perhaps due to being a Legendary Member) then now we have a problem which if I didn't say such a thing wouldn't be the case would it.

Of course to make it a bit more hurtful I should do it like this:

You are a fucking cunt!

I don't disagree with your assessment that being a jerk causes more problems than not being a jerk, but given the freedom to be a jerk, some people are going to be a jerk. I take the line that it'd be great if everyone acted with kindness and empathy towards everyone else, but some people are just awful people, and it's their right to be awful so as long as they don't physically harm another person or their property.

[CIYAM]

I don't disagree with your assessment that being a jerk causes more problems than not being a jerk, but given the freedom to be a jerk, some people are going to be a jerk. I take the line that it'd be great if everyone acted with kindness and empathy towards everyone else, but some people are just awful people, and it's their right to be awful so as long as they don't physically harm another person or their property.

I must say that your tolerance of my "being a jerk" was pretty good (although you couldn't help yourself in calling me a *jerk* which is in itself a *tell* that I did actually upset you).

So your peace preaching is not really backed up by your post content which is actually attacking me.

[J. J. Phillips]

At least the church is being consistent?

Also, it seems the "freedom of expression" France has become such a big fan of recently has limitations as well: French comedian to be tried after Charlie Hebdo gag

Freedom of expression! (...as long as it's approved of expression.)

Some freedom of expression are freer for some, not much for Dieudo!!!!!!

Vive la France.

A little context here: France doesn't have freedom of speech in the same sense as the U. S. They have laws against "hate speech". In fact, the people at Charlie Hebdo were taken to court in 2007 over their drawings. They weren't convicted. I don't know if Dieudonne will be convicted of anything.

It should be pointed out though, in very clear terms, that Dieudonne is a Jew-hating Nazi. In the U. S. it's not illegal to be a Jew-hating Nazi, but in France it's at least of questionable legality. (Here in Canada it's closer to France than the U.S. with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.) Maybe if Dieudonne is tried it'll help clarify whether or not being a Jew-hating Nazi is legal in France.

I personally am a free speech absolutist, so I think Dieudonne should be free to spread his Jew-hatred and I should be free to point out that he's a Jew-hater. It's better for things to be out in the open and to have the cards on the table.

People may think I'm trolling, or joking, or being needlessly provacative by calling Dieudonne a Jew-hating Nazi, but I'm not. Go read about him.  Since it's essentially illegal to do a Nazi salute, he invented an inverted Nazi salute ("Quenelle") that he could get away with. Jew-hatred never really went away in Europe, it just went underground with Europeans. Then they imported many North Africans for whom Jew-hatred never even had to go underground. This allows the Europeans to outsource their Jew-hatred. Sad. Clever, but sad. It's not surprising that a Jew-hating Nazi like Dieudonne would have such a large following and so many supporters. And that swastikas a regularly painted on Jewish graves in Europe. And that every once in a while a Jew-hater goes on a Jew-killing spree. And people pretend to be sad briefly, and then ignore it.

This was all an aside from the main point of this thread, which was, of course that Pope Francis has insulted a freedom that is as dear to me as my mother, so if I ever meet him it's good to know he's OK with me punching him in the face. Or shooting him in the head Charlie Hebdo style. I'm not sure if Pope Francis was talking about face-punching or head-shooting. Either way.

[jaysabi]

I don't disagree with your assessment that being a jerk causes more problems than not being a jerk, but given the freedom to be a jerk, some people are going to be a jerk. I take the line that it'd be great if everyone acted with kindness and empathy towards everyone else, but some people are just awful people, and it's their right to be awful so as long as they don't physically harm another person or their property.

I must say that your tolerance of my "being a jerk" was pretty good (although you couldn't help yourself in calling me a *jerk* which is in itself a *tell* that I did actually upset you).

So your peace preaching is not really backed up by your post content which is actually attacking me.

I think you read it wrong mate. I'm not calling you a jerk, and am in fact agreeing with your point. (I think?) If your point in saying that:

...the simple point is that I can just say "you are a fucking cunt" and if seemingly I have some sort of "voice" (perhaps due to being a Legendary Member) then now we have a problem which if I didn't say such a thing wouldn't be the case would it.

was to say that you are causing a problem by being hostile that wasn't there before, then I am in agreement with you. It seems you are making a hypothetical point here with your "hostility." I expounded upon that point to say that, hypothetically, some people will act like jerks because they are free to do so. Since I thought you were being hypothetical, you were not the jerk I was referring to; I was referring to people who would insult other people just to insult them.

If, however, you are actually being (non-hypothetically) hostile to me with your post, then yes, you are actually being a jerk since the insult is uncalled for. I did not think you were, however. If you do want to be a jerk though, you're perfectly free to do it. It's unnecessary, but my point is being a jerk isn't illegal, nor should it be.

It's actually not until you stated that you thought I called you a jerk that I thought the intention of your post could have been anything but non-hostile.

[CIYAM]

If, however, you are actually being (non-hypothetically) hostile to me with your post, then yes, you are actually being a jerk since the insult is uncalled for.

And that IMO is the crux of the whole issue.

[username18333]

Nietzsche’s philosophy contemplates the meaning of values and their significance to human existence. Given that no absolute values exist, in Nietzsche’s worldview, the evolution of values on earth must be measured by some other means. How then shall they be understood? The existence of a value presupposes a value-positing perspective, and values are created by human beings (and perhaps other value-positing agents) as aids for survival and growth. Because values are important for the well being of the human animal, because belief in them is essential to our existence, we oftentimes prefer to forget that values are our own creations and to live through them as if they were absolute. For these reasons, social institutions enforcing adherence to inherited values are permitted to create self-serving economies of power, so long as individuals living through them are thereby made more secure and their possibilities for life enhanced. Nevertheless, from time to time the values we inherit are deemed no longer suitable and the continued enforcement of them no longer stands in the service of life. To maintain allegiance to such values, even when they no longer seem practicable, turns what once served the advantage to individuals to a disadvantage, and what was once the prudent deployment of values into a life denying abuse of power. When this happens the human being must reactivate its creative, value-positing capacities and construct new values.

An arrogant person considers himself perfect. This is the chief harm of arrogance. It interferes with a person’s main task in life—becoming a better person.

[criptix]

a though i want to add to this discussion because im agreeing that there are limits to freedom of expression.

in germany (and i believe in most western civilizations) there are laws against mobbing.
this problem started mainly in schools and social networks, but it is part of the whole society.

what we have now with charlie hebdo is in my opinion "mobbing" on just a much greater scale.

human rights - and freedom with it - is the most important archievement of mankind, but there exist a limit and it is reached when we are limiting the freedom/rights of others.

so the question is can we limit the freedom/human rights of others by just expressing what we want?
i think yes, a human being or group that gets mobbed/insulted/harassed/discrimated against by speech is not equal in the sense of human rights.

but i also would agree saying "you asshole" would probaly not be a case of that...

[Atheist]

Is Pope still free? Police didn't arrested him yet?

[pungopete468]

There are consequences to free expression, not limits...

[jaysabi]

There are consequences to free expression, not limits...

If by consequences you mean violence, there is no justification for it. There is never justification to initiate violence.

[jaysabi]

If, however, you are actually being (non-hypothetically) hostile to me with your post, then yes, you are actually being a jerk since the insult is uncalled for.

And that IMO is the crux of the whole issue.

I agree the initiation of insults is uncalled for, and insulting another culture is just plain mean, but the next question is always so what? If someone wants to be a jerk and insult people for no reason, you're free to do so. Violence is never an appropriate response.

Violence is never an appropriate response.