At What point does freedom of Speech &. Expression concerning Religion become offensive?

[phil_at_dayboro]

We Live in interesting Times ,

An Old but very valid Statement ,

I Belive that everyone has a right to a view, but what if that view becomes offensive to you? ,
What if that view becomes a Violent oppressive movement against what you stand for ?

What would you do ?
Would you pack up and move to a more accomodating area that supports your belief ,
Or would you perhaps fight back ?
This is perhaps more than one Question, what are your thoughts
View attachment 22692

 

[DeusExMachina]

If it crosses a line, it crosses a line. I would try to “leave” but if that were not an option I would combat their open expression of their beliefs

 

[Crusaderbear]

Sticks and stones is germane to begin with. If a contrary view is brought in from the outside, but remains just a difference in viewpoint, I can coexist (I think…) when it starts demanding major changes in my beliefs, I will fight back. Like the line from an old Clint Eastwood flick, the Lord said “turn the other cheek” but after you’ve done that, he didn’t say anything else!

Many roads may lead to heaven, I can only show them what I believe to be true by example, if they choose another path, so be it, so long as it doesn’t interfere with mine.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

Thinking of some of the extremist “radio preachers” and websites I’ve encountered here, where I draw the line is the difference between accusations of alleged bizarre Catholic beliefs (protected), and accusations of crime / conspiracies (in my view, not protected). For example, someone accuses the Catholic Church of making Mary above God, adding her to the Trinity, worshipping statues, re-crucifying Christ, etc., well, as wrong as those are, I consider those protected speech. Last I knew, conspiracies are criminal behavior. So when someone accuses the Church of engaging in a conspiracy to kill a billion people in the name of “preserving the earth,” or trot out that fraudulent “Jesuit oath” alleging that Pope Francis and every other Jesuit is conspiring to kill Protestants, or that the Jesuits are behind ISIS (just heard that one last week), or that historically the Jesuits had JFK killed … And on and on, well, I don’t regard allegations of criminal behavior as “protected speech,” just as the proverbial “yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre” isn’t protected speech either.

Of course, no one seems willing to take such criminal accusations against the Church to a judicial forum - unlike, say, even the mildest accusation against Islam, which would result in massive governmental intervention.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Well I’m a Jew who supports the right to use the swastika , and a Christian who supports the right to blasphemous cartoons about Christians …

My point is that’s what freedom of speech is supposed to do protect offensive speech .

 

[BobCatholic]

How to test if freedom of speech or freedom of religion is offensive.

Ask one question: Does it disagree with a leftist?

If yes, then it is offensive.

Simple as that.

 

[JimG]

Well I’m a Jew who supports the right to use the swastika , and a Christian who supports the right to blasphemous cartoons about Christians …

My point is that’s what freedom of speech is supposed to do protect offensive speech .

Yes. Inoffensive speech hardly needs protection. It’s offensive speech that needs to be protected under the First Amendment. But our society seems to be trending toward approval of censorship rather than freedom of speech.

 

[mikekle]

Yes. Inoffensive speech hardly needs protection. It’s offensive speech that needs to be protected under the First Amendment. But our society seems to be trending toward approval of censorship rather than freedom of speech.

Exactly!

Im sure it was very offensive to some people back before the Declaration of Independence to suggest splitting off from England, going to war over this cause, etc, but look at where all that ‘offensive’ speech got us…!!

Problem is today though, people are not the same, they are not as protective of their rights, many people believe the Govt knows best and will side with Govt no matter what, this has been accomplished by decades of ‘conditioning/ brainwashing’ by our Govt and media.

 

[Robert_Sock]

As I said in another thread on this topic, engaging in anything that results in the dehumanization of anyone, including groups, should be criminal. This dehumanization was used by Hitler against the Jews, and is currently being used against Muslims. We must love our enemies, as commanded by Christ.

 

[shockerfan]

As I said in another thread on this topic, engaging in anything that results in the dehumanization of anyone, including groups, should be criminal. This dehumanization was used by Hitler against the Jews, and is currently being used against Muslims. We must love our enemies, as commanded by Christ.

Mr. Sock,

Certainly we have a moral responsibility to love our enemies. I agree.

In order to understand your perspective, do you think “offensive speech” should be criminal? If so, how do you define “offensive”? (For example, on some college campuses, there are students who think presenting an opposing viewpoint, even if done politely, is “offensive”.) I’m curious how you would define “offensive”.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

As I said in another thread on this topic, engaging in anything that results in the dehumanization of anyone, including groups, should be criminal. This dehumanization was used by Hitler against the Jews, and is currently being used against Muslims. We must love our enemies, as commanded by Christ.

I’m not sure attempting to suppress speech, even hateful speech is a good idea. Sounds like a recipe for creating underground groups who feel they have few outlets for their pov.
I believe that free speech is standing for another’s right to say that which you most detest.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Mr. Sock,

Certainly we have a moral responsibility to love our enemies. I agree.

In order to understand your perspective, do you think “offensive speech” should be criminal? If so, how do you define “offensive”? (For example, on some college campuses, there are students who think presenting an opposing viewpoint, even if done politely, is “offensive”.) I’m curious how you would define “offensive”.

I’m not really concerned with offensive speech per se, but speech that dehumanizes a group of people, or even an individual. Such speech would have to be intentionally hateful. We have strong laws concerning hate crimes, I would take things one step further. Enforcing it would be tough at times, but we would need to ingrain such speech within our culture where it becomes taboo. It would largely be enforced using social control where individuals using such dehumanization speech are ostracized. Today free speech is too highly valued, even to the point that it promotes hatred which is tolerated.

Cultural design is possible, and there are probably no social psychologists that would think otherwise. Love would be paramount in a shrewdly designed culture.

 

[Rohzek]

The quote from Chomsky the OP gives is spot on. Anything can potentially be offensive. Therefore, we should tolerate all speech regardless.

 

[JimG]

I’m not really concerned with offensive speech per se, but speech that dehumanizes a group of people, or even an individual. Such speech would have to be intentionally hateful. We have strong laws concerning hate crimes, I would take things one step further. Enforcing it would be tough at times, but we would need to ingrain such speech within our culture where it becomes taboo. It would largely be enforced using social control where individuals using such dehumanization speech are ostracized. Today free speech is too highly valued, even to the point that it promotes hatred which is tolerated.

Cultural design is possible, and there are probably no social psychologists that would think otherwise. Love would be paramount in a shrewdly designed culture.

Why have strong laws against hate crimes? Which is worse, a murderer who systematically kills people of a particular group because he hates them? Or a serial killer who systematically kills people just because he enjoys killing, no hate involved? The victims are just as dead whether they were killed because they were hated or killed in cold blood. Should the cold blooded killer get a lesser sentence?

 

[shockerfan]

I’m not really concerned with offensive speech per se, but speech that dehumanizes a group of people, or even an individual. Such speech would have to be intentionally hateful. We have strong laws concerning hate crimes, I would take things one step further. Enforcing it would be tough at times, but we would need to ingrain such speech within our culture where it becomes taboo. It would largely be enforced using social control where individuals using such dehumanization speech are ostracized. Today free speech is too highly valued, even to the point that it promotes hatred which is tolerated.

Cultural design is possible, and there are probably no social psychologists that would think otherwise. Love would be paramount in a shrewdly designed culture.

Robert,

Details here are really important, because details become law. What kind of speech “dehumanizes” a group of people? You do realize that there are some people, if it were up to them, would say pro-life / anti-abortion speech dehumanizes women? Do you want that to become criminal?

I get what you are saying, but I don’t think you realize the actual implications of trying to enforce such a law. The “unintended consequences” would be disastrous…where the cure would be much worse than the disease.

 

[HelenRose]

Why have strong laws against hate crimes? Which is worse, a murderer who systematically kills people of a particular group because he hates them? Or a serial killer who systematically kills people just because he enjoys killing, no hate involved? The victims are just as dead whether they were killed because they were hated or killed in cold blood. Should the cold blooded killer get a lesser sentence?

I have had some trouble with the concept of “hate” crimes. If a man beats up a woman, it is because he hates her. If a black man kills another black man, it is because he hates him. It doesn’t make sense to me to target just one type of hate and set it up a worse than another type of hate. Hate is evil period. The worse type of killing in my mind is systematic killing with no emotion at all. The killing of unborn babies for instance. No hate involved at all just a cold unemotional act of murder.

 

[mikekle]

I have had some trouble with the concept of “hate” crimes. If a man beats up a woman, it is because he hates her. If a black man kills another black man, it is because he hates him. It doesn’t make sense to me to target just one type of hate and set it up a worse than another type of hate. Hate is evil period. The worse type of killing in my mind is systematic killing with no emotion at all. The killing of unborn babies for instance. No hate involved at all just a cold unemotional act of murder.

Oh, I would say hate is very much involved in abortion, in order to work at one of these places, or have any kind of involvement requires some level of hate within the person.

I would say if the doctors, nurses, staff, etc were truthful, they are most likely very unhappy, hateful people, but they have learned how to put on a good poker face.

 

[HelenRose]

Oh, I would say hate is very much involved in abortion, in order to work at one of these places, or have any kind of involvement requires some level of hate within the person.

I would say if the doctors, nurses, staff, etc were truthful, they are most likely very unhappy, hateful people, but they have learned how to put on a good poker face.

You have a point. There may be an underlying hatred but I think of hatred as an emotion. I think, especially for a the “doctor” performing an abortion, all emotion has to be suppressed. I can’t understand how else they can look at the itty bitty hands and feet and not feel remorse or something. It seem to me that they have shut down their humanity in their disregard for human life. I just don’t understand it at all. I mean, I really don’t understand how they can do that over and over again. Something is missing in their soul.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Robert,

Details here are really important, because details become law. What kind of speech “dehumanizes” a group of people? You do realize that there are some people, if it were up to them, would say pro-life / anti-abortion speech dehumanizes women? Do you want that to become criminal?

I get what you are saying, but I don’t think you realize the actual implications of trying to enforce such a law. The “unintended consequences” would be disastrous…where the cure would be much worse than the disease.

Saying that all Muslims are Satanic does nothing promote love, which should be the number one value of any society. For him to say this, we can infer expressed hatred on the Preachers part in an attempt to dehumanize Muslims.

Again, in a carefully constructed culture, the crime would naturally enforced socially. Where would you place love relative to, say, free speech?

 

[shockerfan]

Saying that all Muslims are Satanic does nothing promote love, which should be the number one value of any society. For him to say this, we can infer expressed hatred on the Preachers part in an attempt to dehumanize Muslims.

Again, in a carefully constructed culture, the crime would naturally enforced socially. Where would you place love relative to, say, free speech?

I’m still a little confused on what your actual position is. If you are saying that we, as a society, should ostracize people who say offensive things, then I have no issue with that. However, in an earlier post you said certain offensive language should be criminal, which implies you want the government to imprison someone who might say “Muslims are Satanic”… Is that what you want?