Brendan O’Neill doesn’t mention the jihad attack on our AFDI free speech in Garland, Texas, last May in this otherwise good defense of the freedom of speech — perhaps the truths we tell about jihad and Islamic supremacism are too much for Spiked even as it defends the right to air views that are outside accepted opinion. But nonetheless, he ably challenges the general tendency to kowtow to violent intimidation and practice self-censorship in the face of jihad threats. That tendency will be the death of free speech and free societies, if it isn’t itself challenged and abandoned.
“We must be free to hurt Muslims’ feelings,” by Brendan O’Neill, Spiked, August 12, 2015 (thanks to Inexion):
Following the hacking to death of yet another Bangladeshi secularist blogger, a Bangladeshi police chief has come up with an idea for how these gruesome murders might be halted: secularists should stop criticising religion. Yes, according to Shahidul Haque, the problem is not the machetes being wielded by the intolerant Islamists who can handle no questioning of their beliefs; no, it’s the blasphemous words being published on the blogs of secularists, atheists and free thinkers. If only these people would stop expressing their beliefs, or their lack of belief, then they wouldn’t run the risk of being slaughtered. They ‘crossed the line’, said Haque. If they would just stop ‘hurting religious sentiment’, then they’d be okay.
This extraordinary act of victim-blaming — which can be summarised as ‘Shut the hell up if you want to live’ — came in response to the hacking to death of Niloy Neel in Dhaka. He’s the fourth secularist blogger to be killed this year. Ananta Bijoy Das was stabbed to death on his way to work in June, for daring to contribute to a blog devoted to the promotion of ‘science, rationalism, humanism and freethinking’. The founder of that blog, Avijit Roy, was murdered in February. And Washiqur Rahman was killed with meat cleavers in March. All had been on radical Islamists’ death lists. All were killed for the ‘crime’ of disrespecting, or in Haque’s words ‘hurting’, the dominant belief system in Bangladesh: Islam. What is happening there is like a drawn-out version of what happened at Charlie Hebdo in January: the killing of people for having the supposedly wrong worldview.
Yet even though the police chief’s response to Neel’s killing sounds callous and censorious, doesn’t it also sound familiar? If you want to stay safe, don’t cross the line… where have we heard this before? We heard it after the Charlie Hebdo massacre. And again following the shooting at a free-speech event in Copenhgan [sic] in February. But then, it wasn’t a foreign police boss who was basically saying ‘Silence yourself if you want to live’ — it was liberals, Europe’s chattering classes, even the literary set, all of whom expressed the idea that murdered critics of Islam are responsible for their deaths long before Haque’s hamfisted response to the murder of Neel.
After the Copenhagen shooting, a Guardian writer said: ‘Free speech as legal and moral pre-requisites in a free society must be defended. But…’ Ah, the inevitable ‘but’ that follows every unconvincing declaration of support for free speech these days. ‘But’, he said, ‘we must guard against the understandable temptation to be provocative in the publication of [anti-Islamic] cartoons if the sole objective is to establish that we can do so. With rights to free speech come responsibilities.’ In short, ‘don’t cross the line’ — exactly what the Bangladeshi police chief said to godless bloggers….
Across the West, people’s feelings are being elevated over freedom. Whether it’s plays being shut down because they might offend Muslims, billboards being withdrawn because they rattled feminists, or adverts on buses being taken down because they might ‘hurt’ gay people’s self-esteem, we now seem to value the protection of feelings more than freedom of speech. No, we don’t use machetes to silence those who hurt us, preferring instead petitions and Twitterstorms. But the difference is one of gravity and bloodiness, not moral intent: in all these cases, from Western Europe to the blood-stained streets of Bangladesh, the arrogant aim is the same — to silence those who ‘hurt’ us. Enough. We cannot abandon the Bangladeshi bloggers, or act as if they brought these attacks on themselves. Their freedom of speech is infinitely more important than the feelings of one or even one billion Muslims. Just as our freedom of speech is more important than the sensitivities of any community group or political campaign over here. You feel hurt? Tough shit. Grow up. Deal with it. We will carry on saying what we want to say.
Angel Gabriel says
I totally agree that we ‘must be free to hurt Muslims’ feelings’. I suggest a sitcom with the pedophile Mohammed (violence be upon him) and his 6 yr old wife Aisha. I think it would be hilarious and a huge hit.
lothos says
…maybe call it “my so-called wife”….
..or “are you being perved?”…
…”two pints of camel urine and a packet of figs”…
…”the mullah of dibley”…
..i would have suggested “the young ones” but thats already been done…
Qur'an is Haram says
How about “Open Sesame..Street”
mortimer says
AG wrote: “we ‘must be free to hurt Muslims’ feelings’”
There can be no law of ‘hurt feelings’, because there would be no freedom of expression whatsoever.
Muslims feelings, however, are not the issue. The issue is actually IMPOSING DISCRIMINATORY SHARIA LAW.
Muslims dare not admit in public the vicious TOTALITARIANISM for which they long. Muslims hope to implement Sharia by DECEPTION.
Jihadists will lose most of their opportunity when 95% of Westerners understand the jihad doctrine. Jihad is basically genocide.
Eric Everest says
ABSOFREAKINGLUTELY AGREE 1,000%. Well said.
Mike says
Check out “Sands of Passion” on youtube
Lee says
Well I’m fine with not saying anything to hurt Muslims’ feelings, if they’ll just stop saying things which hurt mine. Renounce Muhammad’s Jihad on unbelievers. Renounce Muhammad’s stoning of women and men. Renounce Muhammad’s paedophilia. Renounce Muhammad’s head-choppings, his torturing of others, his enslavements, his slave-trading, his thefts, his calling women “spoils of war” (K.33.50), and his insults and violent threats to all other religious people.
And most of all, STOP praising the worst criminal in recorded human history. I find the cultish promotion of this criminal and the added “pbuh” more offensive than anything I could say to a Muslim. And since the offense I feel is larger than the known universe, my offense trumps the offense Muslims feel, so now they have to do what *I* say. I’m sure they’ll agree to that, because they’re sooo concerned about “offense”. Not.
In fact everyone feels more offended than Muslims feel, it’s just that we’re not raised to be violent thugs and murderers when we feel offended.
Linde Barrera says
To Robert Spencer- Excellent article. And a curse word or two always adds a little spice to your fabulous writing! Last but not least, you are correct in your assertions. God bless you and your positive energy.
Champ says
Hi, Linde. The article, “We must be free to hurt Muslims’ feelings”, was written by Brendan O’Neill, not Robert Spencer. Just sayin’ …
🙂
Holy Prophet APF says
The truth will set you free!
— John 3:82
***
The truth will set your head on a platter!
— Holy Prophet APF 13:13
John Stefan Obeda says
Already John the Baptist is an example. He had the courage to state the truth.
somehistory says
The disciples were arrested and commanded to stop preaching about Jesus Christ. In response, Peter said, “We cannot stop speaking about the things we have seen and heard (Acts 4:20).”
Free speech was given to us by our Creator. A person must be free to speak the truth.
A person must be free to tell the truth about islam in order to warn those who are a part of the beast from satan and to inform those who do not know it is a beast from satan.
In this country, it is even permitted to speak nonsense and foul. Speaking the truth should never be silenced. Even if, and even because, it hurts the feelings of those who are against truth.
PRCS says
Another otherwise fine article flawed by the author’s use of factually bankrupt euphemisms:
“All had been on radical Islamists’ death lists.”
How exactly do “radical” Islamists differ from everyday, run of the mill Islamists?
As it’s doubtful the Muslims who murdered those bloggers are self-described “moderates”, there are many better description which an be used to accurately define them for his readers, such as Orthodox/strict/observant/devout/pious Muslims.
C’mon.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
How exactly do “radical” Islamists differ from everyday, run of the mill Islamists?
A related question is how an Islamist differs from a Moslem.
But, to answer your question: the difference between an everyday Moslem and the Mujahidin Jihad mass murderer is that the latter is active, he is an activist acting on the commands of the Holy Ko-Ran and the Sunnah.
This is why the everyday Moslems were dancing the in the streets with tears of joy after the Moslem activists flew the two jets into the World Trade Center.
slcocker says
So true, the “radical Muslims” are just those identified in the latest terror attack. Maybe we should change the dialogue to followers of Islam, since it is followers that commit the terrorism, provide cover for their actions or openly praise the attacks.
The plague of Islamic Jihad is set to kill all who oppose it around the world, unless enough people wake up and recognize it as the killer of humanity and work to stop it at all costs.
Stop the Islamic invasion to the West!
mortimer says
Brendan O’Neil wrote: “If you want to stay safe, don’t cross the line… where have we heard this before?”
We heard it from Mohammed: “Submit and you will be safe.” (Aslim, taslam!)
Terrorism and death threats are normative Islam, rather than an aberration.
Cecilia Ellis says
Or, “Just stay quiet and everything will be OK.” — Mohamed Atta
mortimer says
Mohamed Atta based his phrase on ‘Aslim, taslam’.
Angemon says
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gV9Vyht5HG4
Well said!
Westman says
Amen and Amen.
Champ says
We must be free to tell the unvarnished TRUTH about islam & company, which invariably hurts a muslims feelings.
No Fear says
I am offended every time I read the idiotic supremacist garbage in the Quran.
IQ al Rassooli says
Just as no one EVER heard of or mentioned Moderate, Extremist, Militant or Radical NAZIS, no intelligent person would ever speak about Moderate, Extremist, Militant or Radical Muslims since these exist only in the WARPED minds of the Politically Correct
Muslims have NO feelings whatsoever regarding 80% of current humanity whom they denigrate by calling them Infidels/ Kuffar (non Muslims)
In FACT Muslims have NO feelings whatsoever. Just watch them systematically slaughter Christians in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Tunisia, West Bank, Gaza, Pakistan, Nigeria, Chattanooga, Fort Hood, etc. PLUS Sunnis butcher Shia & Shia slaughter Sunnis while shouting their TERROR Verse “Allahu Akbar” with each and every depraved act of theirs.
Muslims NEVER care about Hurting the feelings of Kuffar/ Infidels but being the supreme Duplicitous Hypocrites WHINE that their feelings are ‘hurt’ when people are revealing the FACTS about their murderous & Ungodly CULT belief system; the Cult of Muhammad
Anyone calling himself or herself a MUSLIM is automatically either a TERRORIST in Waiting or a Terrorist in Action & cannot be otherwise
I hope that some brave ‘Muslims’ will try and challenge me
IQ al Rassooli
Kafir & Proud!
mortimer says
Individual modern Muslims may be concerned for the human rights of ‘others’. However, Sharia law has no such concerns. Sharia law demands pious Muslims to remove the human rights and civil liberties of women and ‘others’.
Pious Muslims must stifle any humanitarian sentiments or beliefs they have or cease to be Muslim.
It is an either/or proposition: either 7th century discriminatory Sharia law or modern egalitarian human rights. Most Muslims today lie to themselves, to their families and to the kafirs.
Few Muslims are honest enough to openly call for the barbaric, anti-humanitarian measures in Sharia.
Muslims live in a culture of lies.
Western Canadian says
Years ago, I watched (and still have memories of), a skit on the Carol Bernette (SP?) show…. Usual cast of characters, with a couple of political digs thrown in…. The one that really stands out in my memory, is one of the characters was referred to as a ‘moderate’….. in the bloody KKK.
If the jihadis were to where white robes with pointed white hats to cover their pointed heads….. self proclaimed ‘liberals’ would still not get it.
voegelinian says
Spencer notes:
“Brendan O’Neill doesn’t mention the jihad attack on our AFDI free speech in Garland, Texas, last May in this otherwise good defense of the freedom of speech…”
And adds that:
“..perhaps the truths we tell about jihad and Islamic supremacism are too much for Spiked even as it defends the right to air views that are outside accepted opinion”
A clue to this egregious omission by Brendan O’Neill may well lie in the fact that he’s one of those asymptotics who has a tendency to refer to the problem as “modern Islamist terrorism” rather than Islam — Islam, the whole Islam, and nothing but Islam.
An article he wrote for the Telegraph back in September of 2013, for example, is quite good in some respects and places, but is maddeningly behind the learning curve about the broader problem of Islam. His bafflement at the strangely nihilistic violence of Muslim jihadists (seen also in the rest of his article), and his fixation on how this “modern” terrorism in its singular nihilistic violence has never been seen before (only going back to the terrorism of the 20th century) indicates that he has an inadequate familiarity with the long history of Islamic jihad & terror. One excerpt:
What we have today, uniquely in human history, is a terrorism that seems myopically focused on killing as many people as possible and which has no clear political goals and no stated territorial aims. The question is, why? It is not moral masturbation to ask this question or to point out the peculiarity and perversity of modern Islamist violence. My penny’s worth is that this terrorism speaks to a profound crisis of politics and of morality. Where earlier terrorist groups were restrained both by their desire to appear as rational political actors with a clear goal in mind and by basic moral rules of human behaviour – meaning their violence was often bloody, yes, but rarely focused narrowly on committing mass murder – today’s Islamist terrorists appear to float free of normal political rules and moral compunctions. This is what is so infuriating about the BBC’s refusal to call these groups terrorists – because if anything, and historically speaking, even the term terrorist might be too good for them.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100238080/im-sorry-but-we-have-to-talk-about-the-barbarism-of-modern-islamist-terrorism/
In some of his descriptions he seems fixated on the carnage in terms of modern technology of explosives, for example (re: the countless suicide bombings in the Muslim world); but this should not distract him from the fact that Muslims — long before they had explosives (and/or before they had ready delivery of explosives which cars, trucks and cell phones enable, if some quibbler may try to argue that Muslims had explosives as far back as a few centuries ago) — were perpetrating this type of carnage century after century, from the 7th century forward. Just taking one example, the Armenian genocide, an eyewitness description of it reproduced by Andrew Bostom shows that multitudes of ordinary Muslim civilians (farmers, villagers, etc.) mass-murdered Christians with any implement they could find to hand — axes, shovels, picks, sticks, knives, whatever. Or the waves of genocide in the protracted onslaught against Hindus & Buddhists in India by Muslims throughout the pre-modern era: no suicide bombings there, but plenty of “nihilistic” terrorism.
What Brendan O’Neill construes as “nihilistic barbarism” and his understandable dismay, disgust and alarm at it, indicates an explanatory vacuum, whereby he hasn’t factored in the positive ideological-fanatical element in Islamic jihad, and only considers it as sheer wanton destructiveness.
Thus in the same article quoted above, written in September of 2013:
“it’s the first “resistance” in history whose prime targets have been civilians rather than security forces, and which has failed to put forward any kind of political programme that its violence is allegedly designed to achieve… What motivates this perversity? What are its origins?”
O’Neill doesn’t answer his own questions — to a great extent because he seems ignorant of the massive answer: Islam, in its texts, tenets, and bloody history, all in our century coalescing in the form of a global revival after some three centuries of stagnancy.
gravenimage says
Voegelinian wrote, quoting Brendan O’Neill:
What we have today, uniquely in human history, is a terrorism that seems myopically focused on killing as many people as possible and which has no clear political goals and no stated territorial aims. The question is, why?
……………….
Sadly, I have heard this from other otherwise solid Anti-Jihadists.
The idea that Jihad terror has no purpose is a pernicious one–of course, it *does* have a very specific purpose, and has ever since the days of the foul “Prophet”.
It is to get Infidels to submit to Islam, either as converts or submissive dhimmis, and to slaughter them outright if the resist.
Many Kuffar, especially in the West, cannot believe this is its purpose–after all, a Jihad terror attack is not a full-fledged military invasion. But as we’ve seen all too well since 9/11, it does not have to be–Jihad terror attacks, coupled with migration, “lawfare”, and other forms of stealth Jihad, are continuing to render more and more of Dar-al-Harb–especially the West–in many ways increasingly “Shari’ah compliant”.
And Islam is, in its way, patient–if such a violent creed can be so characterized. After all, pious Muslims spend *seven hundred years* hammering away at Byzantium until that great empire succumbed.
dumbledoresarmy says
yes. But being in for the long haul can work from *our* side, too. Let’s not forget that. Our only problem is that at a certain stage in our history, infidel history, we were too successful, for just a bit too long, at containing the ummah, and so the general public *forgot* (at least consciously) the danger. I think the opening chapters of Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, the opening scenario, are quite a good parallel for our situation…a great Enemy that had been subdued, though not properly *defeated*, and that has been lying in wait and under cover for centuries, and that most have *forgotten* about, is resurgent, but people are in denial. In that regard, people like Spencer and Mark Durie and Bat Yeor are not just like Dumbledore in the Harry Potter series; they are like Gandalf in “Lord of the Rings”, going round trying to wake people up. the trick is, once woken up, to NOT make the mistake of forgetting again.
The Iberians – the Portuguese and Spanish – never gave up, never stopped trying, and they *did* get rid of the Mohammedans, for a good long time. Provided they remember their history, they can do it again. And again and again and again, for as long as it takes.
That phrase, ‘as long as it takes’, is from Yaacov Lozowick’s “Right to Exist”. He’s Israeli. It was what one of his friends said, as they were discussing Israel’s self-defence, and how long they would have to keep fighting for. In context – it’s a while since I read the book, so I can’t give the fine details – it involves the grim recognition, on the part of some Jews in Israel (more and more of them, as time goes on) that they are in for a *very* long haul if they mean to survive, and that so long as the Muslims keep coming they (the Jews of Israel) must be prepared to fight them off.
gravenimage says
Hera, hear, DDA!~
gravenimage says
Let’s try that again:
Hear, hear, DDA!
Theodoric says
Nobody’s “Prophet” has a right NOT TO BE MOCKED.
Even HUMAN “Prophets” have NO right NOT TO BE MOCKED – and the same thing goes for Islam’s Muhammasaurus Rasulex.
https://drawthevileprophet.wordpress.com/2015/05/09/no-prophet-has-a-right-not-to-be-mocked/
jayell says
“We must be free to hurt Muslims’ feelings”…….Exactly. But this shouldn’t have to be stated, since we are supposed to be living in a free society with free speech. If you are a ‘free’ person, you have a right to hold whatever opinion you want and an equal right to say it out loud in public.This means occasionally hurting peoples’ feelings a bit. But if you’re not being truthful, or simply malicious, there is the safeguard that you can be quite rightly taken to court for slander, and punished accordingly. So having your feelings hurt is simply one of the standard hazards of living in a free democracy, rather like being injured in a road accident is part of the freedom of being allowed to drive a motor car.
Trying to claim that no one has a right to ‘hurt your feelings’ is, on one level, a symptom of the pathetic egocentric immaturity of the sploit brat who has been brought with no regard for others and is convinced that only HE and HIS needs matter. On another level it is a symptom of an altogether more sinister disregard of the rights of others, and consequently a failure to accept one’s position as no more nor less than equal to others and therefore with no right to preferential consideration above anyone else. Any ‘demand’ for exemption from adverse opinion or comment within a free democratic context therefore suggests an assumed right to preferential consideration, which is ipso facto antidemocratic, and ostensibly motivated by some kind of supremacist mindset. For the quality of democracy to be maintained, any such ‘demands’ for any kind of ‘special consideration’ should therefore not only be resisted but shown zero tolerance, much as one would firmly discipline the antics of a spoilt child for the good of all.
In short, these obnoxious b*stards should be told to put up or shut up, or else push off somewhere else, like pronto!
epistemology says
I don’t care how they feel, I can’t understand it anyway. I care care about freedom of speech which I love and cherish. So muzzies leave us alone
abad says
I find Islam, the Quran, and the violent actions of Muslims highly offensive.
Oh I find the Muslim male humping of goats, offensive, too. Whatever did the goats do to them.
RonaldB says
It’s all very well to draw out the philosophical and legal basis for valuing free speech above feelings.
The question, actually, is political and pragmatic. In Bangladesh, anti-Islamic writers will get hacked to death and the police won’t look for the murderers with very much enthusiasm, if any. Is it because they have not yet been subjected to the very good arguments for free speech? Or is it because the country is majority Muslim? Do Muslims listen to arguments for free speech?
So, the deciding factor is not how well the arguments are made: it is who has power over the levers of government and security?
Let me bring the question home. Who would be a better defender of our traditional liberties: a candidate who waffled on the specific question of criticism or ridicule of Islam, but firmly defended the right and obligation of the government to close its borders and limit immigration..including specific immigration of Muslims? Or, a candidate who came down right on the abstract notion of freedom of speech, but waffled on the idea of physically protecting the border, expelling illegal aliens and severely cutting down legal immigration?
Know Thy Enemy says
This is not too hard of a choice- The leader who is a firm supporter of Free Speech will be a better defender of our liberties! This is because Free Speech by its own nature is a defender of liberties. So if Free Speech is protected, our liberties are automatically protected. No aliens, whether legal or illegal, can change this freedom defending nature of Free Speech.
If anyone, no matter legal or illegal, citizen or not, has a hard time accepting this freedom, s/he will have no choice but to either adapt, or pack up and leave. Also, if Free Speech reigns supreme, we will be free to discuss immigration anyway.
Bottomline: It is foolish to support Donald Trump!
Davegreybeard says
One of the best ways to smoke out your budding Muslim Jihadi is to have a Draw Muhammad cartoon contest.
Great entertainment.
Tried and proven – we need to have a lot more.
Can’t wait for the next one…
ECAW says
There’s one planned by Sharia Watch in London on Sept 18th though of course it might be banned for the sake of community cohesion:
http://www.shariawatch.org.uk/video/muhammad-art-exhibition-london-2015#.Vc7P_33LAt0
Robert Spencer complains that the Garland exhibition wasn’t mentioned in the article. I find it curious that the London exhibition which is a follow on from Garland has not been mentioned on Jihad Watch (as far as I have seen).
gravenimage says
If only these people would stop expressing their beliefs, or their lack of belief, then they wouldn’t run the risk of being slaughtered. They ‘crossed the line’, said Haque. If they would just stop ‘hurting religious sentiment’, then they’d be okay.
This extraordinary act of victim-blaming — which can be summarised as ‘Shut the hell up if you want to live’ — came in response to the hacking to death of Niloy Neel in Dhaka…
……………………………………..
That’s *exactly* what this is. When someone babbles on about “hurting religious sentiments”, this conjures up an image of someone sobbing over some old meanie saying cruel things about, say, baby Jesus–not some ravening Mohammedan slaughtering innocent people for daring to speak the truth about Islam’s violence.
And note that all of this “sensitivity” is supposed to go one way–Muslims are not “sensitive” to Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists or Yazidis–instead, they flagrantly denigrate these faiths, while–and *this* is the salient point–oppressing, abusing, and murdering their practitioners.
Raja says
This article should be taken seriously as what is at stake is freedom to opinion and freedom of speech. “You are damned if you do and you are damned if you don’t” seems to be the diktat coming from Jihadists and Islamic jugglers. Bangladesh murders must not be viewed in isolation by any one especially the Western leaders.
At least some of mass murders in the name of Islam could have been avoided if there was less appeasement and more “yes be yes no be no” Every time a Jihadist kills one(or multiples at one go) he thinks he has done a good job to further advancement of global Islamic caliphate. This is just the opposite of the state of “kingdom of God” mentioned in the bible. One is distinctly earthly and materialistic(72 virgins blah blah) and other purely spiritual.
“Hurt” must to be avoided all the time but the truth gets precedence and expressions/words must be used with utmost care . If in this process someone is hurt so be it. The issue of “hurt feelings” is serious booby trap for the world at large. Recently an eccentric who claim after a murder: He killed my chick and I murdered him as I was hurt”. Managing a “hurt sentiment” is a never ending cycle and ti is best to keep off it. The message from a non-muslim should be:: I know Islam and I reject it and I stand by my belief.
In this BEST age of all time i.e., internet age we need to galvanize thoughts on Islam and we can put a decent shield against war and propaganda machine (which is highly disproportionate) of Islam. In the light of this the murder of bloggers is of crucial importance to a saner world order if we TAKE A VERY SERIOUS NOTE, similar to that of Charlie Hebdo massacre.
This article by RS is an intelligent masterpiece !
Cirxus says
O Neil is one of the few journalists in the UK who actually has any balls. His principle target isn’t jihad, it’s the identity politics, victim mongering and tyranny of the progressive left that are . He’s anti EU and pro democracy .
Despite being the bastardised off spring of Marxism Today, spiked is the nearest thing we have to a mainstream website dedicated to the enlightenment, faith in humanity and democracy. I’m with him on this, I despise the cultural Marxists and left wing politicians, including Cameron who facilitate the Islamists by destroying our freedoms than I do the Islamists who are just ignorant evil savages
mortimer says
American Supreme Court judges have denied there is a right to protect ‘hurt feelings’ in the US Constitution or to criminalize ‘blasphemy’ because the US has no state religion.
FREEDOM OFSPEECH IS THE RIGHT TO OFFEND
U.S. law values and permits the right to blaspheme because there is no established ‘American religion’. What is ‘sacred’ to one person may be highly ‘blasphemous’ to another. Without an officially defined state religion, it is not the responsibility of the judges to intervene.
-Justice Clark in 1952 wrote: “…it is enough to point out that the state has no
legitimate interest in protecting any or all religions from views distasteful
to them. … It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real
or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine.”
-Justice Frankfurter noted that beliefs “…dear to one may seem the rankest ‘sacrilege’ to another,” and added concerning “sacrilegious” speech: “…history does not encourage reliance on the wisdom and moderation of the censor.”
Westman says
To be offended or have “hurt feelings” because of something shown, said, or written about one’s belief shows a lack of confidence in that belief. Stifling the messenger can only lead to the preservation of error.
In our Congress, members may say anything, including speech that would be prosecuted as libel if said anywhere else, and there are no fights, demonstrations, or threats. An honest discussion requires that all sides be heard without constraint and that, in the end, civility prevails.
There are people in our society whose feelings we attempt to spare by withholding truth about certain fables; we call them children. Adults should be wiser.
Purushottam Deshmukh says
The Islamists have no option than being violent monsters. The self-appointed Caliph of the so-called Islamic State Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi seems to have truly understood the import of Islamism and the Koran. He had publically said that ISLAM IS NOT A RELIGION OF PEACE. Today, being an apple in the eye of every radicalised Moslem, he has lifted everyone up from torturous sense of being human beings. When one is freed from the uphill task of being human, he doesn’t find it necessary to protect his belief-system through intellect. He can’t distinguish between man and the beast. The machete with which a beast is hacked is used to behead secular non-believers.
Uncle Vladdi says
It should never be allowed by backwards people to be considered “illegal” to accuse these criminals (muslims) of their crimes, allegedly because the painful truth might offend them or hurt their feelings, and so “make” them commit even more crimes!
No problem was ever solved by ignoring it, and we aren’t doing even any of these muslims (whose own ancestors were among Muhammad’s first victims) any favours by going along with any of their historic lies and alibi excuses for their crimes.
Islam is a threat to everyone because IT says it is.
Uncle Vladdi says
Political correctness (factual incorrectness) is really extortion and – at least attempted – thought control. It’s basic human nature to react in denial to any and all new ideas, every time; so, to pretend everyone has a responsibility to not offend anyone else, ever, to not hurt their feelings with the often painful Truth, is not only insane, it’s literally impossible.
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
– William F. Buckley Jr. –
abad says
Does that mean I can write a letter to Hussein O and refer to him as an Iznaqi?
Do you think he’d even know what that means? LOL