Freedom of Speech and freedom to respond to speech:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

People labor under three common misconceptions of freedom of speech:

1) The freedom to speak means that the words have an associated mandate for others to listen to them and to respect these words simply due to their being spoken. This, to put it bluntly, is nonsense. It always has been, and it will always be. There is certainly freedom to say that Muhammad was a genocidal warlord or that Jesus was a charlatan with delusions of grandeur, but there is likewise the freedom on the part of others to criticize and to ignore such statements. Freedom to speak, thus, is no mandate or obligation, on the part of others to listen to that speech.

2) The freedom to speak has no equivalent protection for those who speak for the consequences of their words. If a Neo-Nazi wades into a gathering of extremist Israeli movements and starts shouting "Opa war recht" he has himself to blame for grabbing the tiger's tail. If a KKK type goes into a New Black Panther movement and gives a Theodore Bilbo-style speech knowing that the people there have guns and/or clubs, he's himself to blame when he gets what he wanted. The acts are crimes and should be prosecuted, yes, absolutely. There is all the same no obligation on the part of anyone to save people from what they get when they decide to deliberately taunt homicidal maniacs and then it turns out that well, pissing off murderous extremists might just be a bad idea.

3) The freedom to say certain things is neither handwave for the things said nor an obligation that everything said is good simply because there is freedom to say it. There are any number of offensive, evil, vile things out there that are said and made. There are films that sexualize real rapes for the titilattion of mass viewings, there are photographs of genocides, lynchings, there are films that are cinematic masterpieces and great changes in the art of film-making but in content are some of the vilest and most disgusting films ever made. There are books that advocate any number of vile, wretched, evil ideas and there are also such fanatical and disgusting testaments to the past generations such as this one:

Heaven brings forth innumerable things to help man.
Man has nothing with which to recompense Heaven.
Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill.

Was and is there freedom to say such things? Yes. They are, however, still disgusting and morally repugnant all the same. Freedom carries with it responsibilities, but freedom also is no absolvement of moral judgment. While freedom of speech may and does necessitate the right to say certain things or to make certain films, it is not in itself a reason to support either as sentiments or entertainment, so-called.

Comments

[oportet.livejournal.com]

Pissing off murderous extremists is a bad idea, but in this case - the murderous extremists aren't attacking who pissed them off in the first place. They're attacking people for not stopping the people who pissed them off, which only gives credence to the 'they hate us for our freedoms' crowd. One step back and two more steps back.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Well they do.

Or rather they hate us because we are wealthy, powerful, and can get away with shit.

[bikinisquad3000.livejournal.com]

Keep in mind that in (for example) Egypt, you can't make a film without submitting the script for government approval, and that some folks over there are as familiar with American law as the average American is with Egyptian law. Hell, I've heard Americans complain that Obama doesn't bypass Congress and fix [insert issue] by making his own laws dictator-style; it's really not that suprising to see people thousands of miles away in a country with an official censorship board misunderstand how our government works.