Freedom of speech, part deux

In response to Frank Curren's post - and once again a serious note with some opinionated passages...

With all due respect (and I do thank your elgious words, 'Ster Curren) I do not quite agree with the precedent article, and I might veer this back to debate...?

What you are saying about Galileo, Jesus, et al. is that they were of those who unduly challenged the system in place - effectively partaking in those activities that were disruptive.

However, you seem to have passed over another term of the contract of free speech that I did mention in my own article: the fact that it was properly thought out prior to being (or attempted to be) flung into the masses.

I do not doubt that the Institutions of the time, and many citizens themselves, felt scandalized at the ideas and failed (in some sense quite understandably) to see where the arguments were right.

You yourself, Mr Curren, omit using hindsight to discourse on the matter (a device of comedy perhaps?) which is just as bad (and a form of) lack of reflexion (satire is another matter and I would urge any other people intending satire to flag it out, to be sure to differentiate from genuine reflexions that can also be found in this blog).

Also, we must always be wary of those brandishing the sword of censorship on works and words, short of barbarically burning these outright...

In the case of our modern world, many things may be said and done and we will know only after a period of time whether these were right or not - when we have hindsight on the matter (the abortion and stem cell debates to name only two). This is generally (and I would be loathe to state any rules here) the matter with educated research and ideas that have had not had enough time to age and mature.

My "attack" in the Freedom article was to point out that many un-productive rash statements have been made in the past that exarcebated the situations of the time. With reference once again to the cartoon affair, whether the people of Denmark had a disliking for the Islamic world or not is not the point - but in publishing the cartoons however the paper self-designated the country as an "enemy" to that world, and with its ties to Europe just shoved a fair deal of the hopes for intelligent discussion down the drainpipe for a while, whilst the media focused on the scandal and outrage that had been provoked.

I hear over the BBC that a debate is raging over whether the poor taste of some rapper in France is sanctionable under the idea that it is an abuse of freedom of speech. The defense argues that "it is art", which is another sour pill to swallow - that anything undefendable may be defended as "artistic expression". I would cuss and curse at this point, but this blog should remain repectable to an extent so I won't. Whether the rapper should be sanctioned is another matter and I do not wish to express my opinion at this point as I think this entry is possibly long enough already...

So no, Mr Curren, my opinion is not shared with you I am quite afraid. I myself would like not to be so frequently accosted by Jehova's Witensses, but I will take no steps in chasing them off the street other than myself avoiding them, along with many others, in the hope that they will, by themselves, see that they are wasting their own time in attempting to convince and convert us.