Slashdot Mirror
Pope Francis: There Are Limits To Freedom of Expression
hcs_$reboot writes Pope Francis spoke about the Paris terror attacks, defending free speech as not only a fundamental human right but a duty to speak one's mind for the sake of the common good. But he added there were limits. While Francis insisted that it was an "aberration" to kill in the name of God and said religion can never be used to justify violence, he said there was a limit to free speech when it concerned offending someone's religious beliefs. By way of example, he referred to a friend: "if someone says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch". "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 fuck you too.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Well, knowing the Pope is an enemy of human liberty is not all that surprising.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
There's your freedom of speech
This puts him in the same philosophical camp as the terrorists he denounced. He just argues for a slightly lower degree of violence in response to another's expression.
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
While I'm sure I would also throw a punch i don't think it would be very Christian of me. It's weird the pope is fine with it.
he referred to a friend: "if someone says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch"
how is this any different than what the terrorists are doing? Violence for words is never the answer
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
"you can't get violent over people giving you grief. that said: i'd punch you in the face if you swear against my mother." -the pope. i wonder what jesus would recommend. what a half-whit. violence is only a viable option in the mind of people who believe bronze age goat-herder superstitions. and i heard his mother gets around.
Beliefs are beliefs no matter where they arise from. Just because someone believes something written in a book of fairy tales 2000 years ago doesn't make it sacrosanct and above criticism.
What is it with religious types who think their beliefs are somehow special? I'd say it scientific beliefs that are based on things that can be proven - rather than just the witterings of peasents in the desert - have more of a claim to that.
Mothers exist - prophets don't. Show me a prophet and I'll show you a smooth talking charlatan surrounded by a load of suckers.
The elephant in the room is that Islam is fundamentally and irreconcilably offensive to Christians because they say Jesus was not the son of God. There is nothing more blasphemous than denying this fundamental tenant of Christianity.
If we follow this logic Christian's would be perfectly justified in beating up any Muslim that they happened to come across. The problem with the majority of Muslim's is that they don't seem to be able to reconcile the very tolerance that allows them to practice an offensive religion in largely Christian (or at least ones that used to be) countries is a two way street. My personal view is if they can't accept and live with it then they should emigrate to a country with laws more to their liking.
He didn't say it's okay to hit people; he said you'd be stupid not to expect that punch.
Effectively, while the Pope is the leader of a competitor to Islam, they are both in the same industry, with the same basic goals(notably, the recognition that old men with amusing hats and alleged access to divine law are society's rightful authority figures).
Having him deliver a "well, shooting people is bad and stuff; but Do Not Blaspheme!" speech is about as surprising as discovering that two different member companies of the BSA think that software piracy is evil, even if they are competitors and differ somewhat in their preferred DRM.
That aside, the pope is either being foolish or being mendacious if he thinks that you can have 'free speech' if you also insist that it is impermissible to 'offend religious beliefs'. This isn't merely incompatible in the free-speech-absolutist sense of 'any restriction on speech compromises freedom of speech!'; but on a much broader and more practical level. By design religions tend to have opinions and rules about lots, and lots, and lots of things. Depending on the exact circumstances in which they grew up, they can encompass guidance on moral, social, and political matters, gender roles, diet, dress, epistemology, cosmology, biology, etc, etc.
If someone can shut down an avenue of speech by having their religious feelings offended, there are precious few things you can safely talk about, because religions serve so many functions(and, in a society with multiple religions, the at least one is likely to have an opinion on any given topic, even if not all do).
Even religion itself becomes nearly impossible to practice if you can't offend the religious sentiments of others. The pope, for instance, operates an organization that bills itself as the sole route to salvation(with the actual heavy lifting being done by some combination of the Father and the Son in the trinity, of course). Is that not rather strikingly offensive to those who are (whether or not they state it implicitly, or are still praying for the conversion of the jews, as they did until quite recently) hellbound? The Protestants, for their part, only exist because of the premise that the church of Rome is a corrupt institution that has strayed from Christian practice, and only a reformed church, suitably grounded on faith and scripture, can address our salvation requirements. Only the really looney ones(like Jack Chick) spend much time screaming about how the Pope is the 7 headed whore of Babylon and things; but even your mild-mannered Lutheran is a rather brutal implicit insult to Catholicism.
I don't know whether he knows this, and just doesn't give a damn if it means stumping for more religious authority(by most accounts, you don't become pope by being an idiot; but you can become pope by being dogmatic and/or ruthless); or if he simply hasn't thought it through; but it's true either way.
"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,"
Well that's what you get from millennia of religious abuse, wars, restrictions. Faith, hope, fantasy, not one word of it ever corroborated in any religion. Yet we are meant to show respect, tow the line. Why? Because otherwise you will torture, abuse me all in the name of "religion". Don't patronise me by telling me this is not true.
Prove it or shut the fuck up.
P.s We don't get our morals from religion, my observation is that quite often "religious" people have less ethics and morality than atheists.
In my country, that punch would result in an assault charge.
And no, it would not matter what I said, period.
Not saying this is good or bad, just simply that it is...
What country is that? In the US, Buzz Aldrin threw a punch which a judge says was provoked, and so found Dr. Aldrin was found innocent of assault charges:
https://www.google.com/search?q=buzz+aldrin+punch
...while ignoring the content of what he said, and his defense of free speech and expression from a few days ago.
What he said really isn't out of the ordinary.
And they have the gall to call him ignorant, and then proceed to be vile and disgusting trolls.
Even within the US we have long accepted certain limits on speech, particularly in the areas of obscenity, "fighting words", threats, and particularly relevant here: offensive speech. The standard varies and there isnt really a set legal test, and it ultimately usually comes down to being decided on an individual basis.
It's one thing to have a dissenting opinion and be free to enter it into the public discourse.
It is completely another to use that as a mask for bigotry.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
I wish I had mod points of you. The problem you describe is the main problem. Islam has made apostasy into a sin punishable with death. So if you, for whatever reason, stop believing in Islam, you are executed (at least in the countries where they have their ways).
So in my mind it is clear the problem is not terrorists. The problem is Islam itself.
I'm really impressed that even the frigging Pope is taking grief for simply trying to point out the uncomfortable facts here.
There's no reason these two facts can't be simultaneously true. And just as the first act should not be perpetrated, neither should the second. Not by a caring moral human being. We even have laws against hate speech in the USA.
When I was a kid I remember seeing a "soapbox preacher" downtown, who was basically berating passerby whilst holding a Bible. Calling passing women whores, etc. It would be totally wrong for someone to beat the crap out of him. But would I be surprised if someone flew into a rage and did that when their daughter/wife/mom just got called a whore? Not in the slightest.
It bears remembering that Pope Francis is speaking in a moral fashion not a legal one. Thus, when he says there are limits to free speech it is important to remember he may be talking about what is *morally* ok to express not what is legally protected.
I'm a strong free speech absolutist and I believe it is important to explain to people just why religious belief is irrational and unjustified. Yet, nevertheless, I am well aware that while it is an important legal right it would also be wrong to be particularly rude or unecessarily mean in speaking. Just because we have the legal right to offer deadly insults doesn't mean we should exercisce that right.
Having said this it is important that religion not be given special protection. Many things are important to people. People are mocked in political cartoons all the time...often in a fairly intense or insulting fashion and religion should recieve no more protection. To the extent Pope Francis is disagreeing with this I disapprove of his remarks...but given that the catholic church is one of the great believers in the right to accuse other religions of being wrong I'm not sure that is how they should be interpreted.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
Prophets DO exist. Their existence does not indicate their accuracy or sanity.
I can claim to be the son of FSM and speak as his interpreter.
I am the pirate Seamus McCrory, son of FSM, bearer of meatballs. May the Father embrace you with his noodly appendage. R'amen.
In the US, which by virtue of the 1st Amendment has some of the strongest free speech protections in the world, those words would probably constitute "fighting words'.
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
"insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."
...and you've eaten your pen. simply stunning.
"My personal view is if they can't accept and live with it then they should emigrate to a country with laws more to their liking."
And their personal view is to change the laws to abide to their liking.
I grew up hearing "Sticks & stones will break your bones, but words will never hurt you". It has always worked for me.
You can say safe, polite, PC stuff anywhere. The real acid test for freedom of expression is when you can say things that are not so safe, polite, and PC.
Muslims certainly feel free to offend any non-Muslims.
And maybe the 3% of the population experiences 80% of the oppression?
I mean, I'm a member of the "elect". I'm mainstream in sexuality, race, age, income, etc. I have it pretty good. Why should I bitch and moan?
But gays? They can't marry, they get sometimes get beatings by the 97% and face all kinds of other discrimination, why shouldn't they complain?
Even if the questionable claim you make that 80% of the "bitching and moaning" comes from gays is true, it doesn't LOGICALLY follow that that bitching and moaning isn't PERFECTLY justified.
I mean, frankly, your unsubstantiated claim against them kind of proves their point about having cause to bitch and moan, so in a way your post is sort of brilliant. You accuse them and justify them all in the same post!
--PeterM