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
There's your freedom of speech
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...
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.
And that is exactly the point. I'm free to say what I want and you are free to ignore it.
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
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.
"If a large enough group of someone is willing to kill you for saying something, then it’s something that almost certainly needs to be said, because otherwise the violent have veto power over liberal civilization."
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.
Why do we still care what the pope says?
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
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.
The problem is they can't say your prophet sucks if you don't have one. Maybe non-believers should keep a six-pack of prophets handy so the squabble can be settled verbally instead of with Kalashnikovs.
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
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.
Yes, it does, actually. I'm willing to make free speech exceptions for libel, fraud, and maybe government secrets. Offending someone doesn't rate.
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.
Yes, but this is a problem that's exacerbated even by governments.
For example, in most human rights legislation across the globe, religion, which is wholly a choice, is given the same level of protection as genetic traits that you do not choose such as race, sex, sexuality and so forth.
This is an inherently bad idea. Nothing that you can choose should ever be given the same level of protection as something that you cannot choose because it creates a paradox - how can you treat freedom of religious belief with equal protection as sex or sexuality when religious belief often preaches discrimination against them? Inherent natural traits are never in contradiction with each other, but choices are.
Thus the world desperately needs to erase protection of religion from all human rights legislation that places it alongside natural traits, or at least, demote it into it's own lesser category of protection where considerations are secondary to those of natural traits. It's the only sane way to solve the nonsense paradox that treating the choice of religion equal to natural traits creates.
Law should never be written to create a paradox else it becomes meaningless as it's then wholly arbitrary as to which way you decide to apply it making it no different to not having it written in law at all, yet that's exactly what legal protection of religion placed alongside natural traits grants.
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.
John Postel wisely said:
The same is true in human discussion. It is (generally) good to limit what you say to what will be acceptable (not overly offend) others, but at the same time accept that people may say things that you do not like. Being gratuitously rude about others and taking offence at trivia is the best way of starting fights.
That is not to say that there are people & ideas that do not deserve to have fun poked at, especially those that are intolerant of views other than their own or are hypocritical — this is the area that satirical magasines work in ... readers need to understand that and be more tolerant than they might do to others.
I completely disagree with the pope claiming that religious ideas need special protection. They do not. Their effects on huge numbers of people means that their ideas should be strongly tested, not above criticism. But: given his position, there is little else that he can say.
I'm free to say what I want and you are free to be unpredictable.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Because that's also what the pontiff is asking of us.
On the one hand, when feeling less judgmental I think it can be a wise approach. It seems normal that so many people always want to keep things the way they are. Adapting to change is not as easy for some as it is for others and one could argue that the more progressive types sometimes need to be more tolerant and patient towards the less adaptable conservative types, many of whom are also religious.
On the other hand, when those same conservative, religious types maintain arbitrary, strange, discriminatory and often cruel beliefs that they strongly feel should also be respected by everyone else, then I become less tolerant of them. The Pope needs to recognize that there are limits to what can be expected even from peaceful, civilized non-believers.
There's no room on this planet who think that anyone that disagrees with them must die...
...As such, all ISIS/ISIL radicals must be purged from the Earth,
You're funny...
The Muslim religion is offended by depictions of Muhammad.
Do you think drawing cartoons of Muhammad and making fun of him is "something that almost certainly needs to be said?"
In Germany, it's against the law to deny the Holocaust.
Shouldn't you go, right now, and draw funny cartoons that deny the Holocaust?
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
"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.
"if someone says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch"
Yup - if we're talking about a real person. I whole-heartedly agree; if it was unwarranted or gratuitous I would fully expect to be seeing a few teeth on the floor. However, if someone get's antsy over a comment I make about their invisible imaginary friend they can fuck right off. I don't care which religion it is, someone handing out a beating or killing over it becomes less than human and shouldn't be breathing my air.
As the head of the western paedophiles and discrimination club he should watch *his* mouth, as should high ranking members of the eastern paedophiles and discrimination club. Surprising as they've shared so many of the same hobbies & interests that they should be at war over who's imaginary friend is better.
(Yes, I'm an atheist and proud to have *real* friends. Some of them are even sane.)
"If a large enough group of someone is willing to kill you for saying something, then it’s something that almost certainly needs to be said, because otherwise the violent have veto power over liberal civilization."
Definitely worth repeating, as is this later quote: "But when offenses are policed by murder, that’s when we need more of them, not less, because the murderers cannot be allowed for a single moment to think that their strategy can succeed."
I think you have a point. While for a long time in American history you might expect the authorities to look the other way if someone insulted your mother or wife to your face and you immediately cold-cocked them, I suspect they would have been far less likely to tolerate you traveling miles to initiate a confrontation with said person.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
I grew up hearing "Sticks & stones will break your bones, but words will never hurt you". It has always worked for me.
The Christian religion is offended by the claim of Islam that Jesus is not the son of God. The inescapable conclusion of which is No Charlie Hebdo, no Koran.
One could further note that if Muslims claimed that Christianity was offensive to them because it claimed that Jesus was the son of God, it was around first, so it is still a fail on behalf of Islam.
That sums it up nicely. Ironically, it's liberals (which most atheists are) who most adamantly keep defending Islam and willfully ignoring the fact that it has a cancer that should be addressed more aggressively by their own leaders. At best, Shariah law is inconsistent with democratic principles. And now, Duke University is allowing the muslim morning call to prayer from it's bell tower. Hello atheists, where are you now? We all know if they'd said the lord's prayer was to be played from the tower instead, leftists and atheists would be howling for blood and freaking out. They shouldn't be doing either of them, University should be totally secular. (Yay, and now after probably pissing off lefties, I've just pissed off righties.. such is the curse of the moderate)
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
The pope got it backwards! There is no limit on free speech, there IS a limit on the individual's right to seek retribution for a perceived insult.
Yes, it does, actually. I'm willing to make free speech exceptions for libel, fraud, and maybe government secrets. Offending someone doesn't rate.
The Supreme Court seems to have disagreed with you regarding offending someone. See, for example, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, in which the Court ruled that "fighting words" ('speech that "tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction".').
I'm amused by those who think they will just punch someone out and that'll be the end of it. It depends on who you punch. It might just be the start of it. Today, there's right many people who can fight. Punch one of them and you can expect quite a few punches in return.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
The Muslim religion is offended by depictions of Muhammad.
Actually, no. That is something made up by Muslim radicals. Nothing in the Koran about it.
No but then as far as I am aware no Jews have murdered a significant proportion of the editorial team of a publication for printing pictures of Moses or Abraham, ... Neither am I aware of any Jews demanding that such pictures never be published.
The problem is Sunni Muslims take offence at *ANY* depiction of the prophet, whether it mocks Islam or not. They would like to make it illegal for me to ever depict Muhammed visually. This is whole and totally unacceptable to myself and hundreds of millions of others.
I can't beleive I'm defending the Cristians here but the Pope quoting imaginary words from God and you quoting imaginary words from the Pope are about the same thing in my book.
Pro-Tip: The Pope did not say he would punch anyone.
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.
quoting a hadith:
Until the Jew hides behind the rock and the tree. But the rock and tree will say: 'O Muslim, O servant of Allah, a Jew hides behind me, come and kill him.' Except for the Gharqad tree, which is the tree of the Jews. We believe in this Hadith. We are convinced also that this Hadith heralds the spread of Islam and its rule over all the land.... O Allah, accept our martyrs in the highest heavens.... O Allah, show the Jews a black day.... O Allah, annihilate the Jews and their supporters.... O Allah, raise the flag of Jihad across the land.... O Allah, forgive our sins
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
sorry, but islam IS evil. read the fucked up shit they believe. talking trees and rocks suggesting that they kill those who are different.
this needs to go! I suggest we all vote them off the island. (btw, they are thinking the same thing, as shown above!)
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
I disagree with that ruling. I'm not the only one.
In one case, a person is right in your face insulting your mother. That is generally going to be a physical confrontation, the person is probably puffed up his chest and picking a fight.
A more civilized society would allow dueling as a reaction to such an insult. In other words, instead of being able to immediately punch the person who insulted your mother you could challenge him to a duel (perhaps the law might put limits on the lethality of such a duel) giving the person who was insulted a chance to defend the mother's honor but also giving the insultor a chance to apologize or simply chicken out before any blood is spilled.
It's been said that an armed society is a polite society.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Does the pope not get that there is a difference between criticizing/insulting a system versus criticizing/insulting a person?
When someone criticizing/insults the prophet of Islam, he/she is doing so to the creator of a system/idea that claims they have ALL the answers for ALL of life's problems including how to govern a society. (Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and, IMO, Islam have provided none.). A critique/insult of the prophet is a critique/insult of the system/idea, as the guy is long dead.
When someone is criticizing/insulting someones mother they are doing so on an individual level where the mother in question usually have no such pompous claims. The 2 things are NOT the same and should not be treated the same.
However you should NEVER meet words with violence (Excluding constructed situations like someone is pointing a gun at you and says 'I'm going to kill you in 5 seconds').
If you feel insulted/offended by someones words/drawings/whatever, then you are always free to choose to ignore them OR reply to them using a non-violent medium.
Being offended/insulted gives you NO free pass to use violence as a response!
Round and round we go.
religious people are often insulting atheists and people who put their faith in science, if not overtly, then in discriminating ways.
saying things like there are no morals with out god. calling people heathens. threatening that we will suffer greatly after we die.
does that mean we can punch them in the face?
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
I was not aware that holocaust denial was punishable by death.
Also, I would only say illegal things if I agreed with them. The holocaust actually happened.
And even if you want to deny it, I am not going to murder you over it. Sure, free speech has consequence; but murder is not a valid consequence, no matter what the person said.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Well if they went in and punched the workers at Charlie Hebdo instead of murdering them, you might have a point.
Instead, you are just an apologist.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
Since there is no such things as gods or deities its not possible to speak to them or hence fortell the future from any inspiration received from them. Ergo prophets cannot exist.
Is this too complex for you or do you need it explained in simple words with crayon drawings?
"They were provoked" is never an excuse for violence. The Pope must, of course, defend his religious perspective, but the fact remains that words and pictures are still only words and pictures.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup."
Putting aside the Christian religion, forgiveness is a concept which is ultimately what keeps humans from descending into a state of universal vendetta. Sometimes, you have to weigh the need for vengeance or deterrence against the need to simply move on.
Frequently, moving on is the best action for everyone. There simply needs to be a decision where you say, "this was unfair, this shouldn't have happened, but its done." The person who clings to the unfairness of a situation long after the offense, is is a victim seeking to maintain victimhood.
As far as Christianity goes, it is also important to point out that equations that only take earthly life into consideration will not compute. Everyone is going to die. Everyone is going to have something bad happen to them. Ultimately, if a victim was a good person, they go off the heaven to live happily ever after. Shooting a good person in the head is not exactly depriving them of the potential for happiness.
So, from a Christian position, we gain more from our ability to forgive those who have wronged us than we do by attempting vengeance or even from deterrence. A wrong committed against us is a opportunity to forgive which then provides us with the opportunity to enjoy the afterlife.
Needless to say, only the most saintly of believers is going to be able to completely overlook the wrongs done to them and have faith that what has happened to them will ensure happiness elsewhere. However, it is important to point out that in this case, forgiveness isn't benefiting the perpetrator of the outrage, it is benefiting the victim.
More to the point, mothers tend to engender strong emotions in humans. Especially humans who come from certain cultural backgrounds.
The point is not that mothers or prophets are real, its that if you poke someone hard enough where they are sensitive, they're going to instinctively lash out at you. It doesn't mean it is right, it doesn't mean it is justified. All it means is that it is going to be hard to control that response, and if you are hitting that area, you're going to get that response.
All he's saying is that, if you don't want to get kicked in the balls, don't position your crotch near someone's leg and then smack their kneecap with a hammer. If you insist on the need to do that despite the expected response, accept the fact that it is coming and wear a cup. :)
If someone is genuinely trying to convey a message, they wouldn't swear at my mother either. If they do, all their efforts will be lost by due to a punch in the face.
This is not an example of a limit to free speech. Rather, this is an example of consequences of free speech.
Actually, no. That is something made up by Muslim radicals. Nothing in the Koran about it.
There is a good reason why a Muslim shouldn't make pictures of Mohammed: Because they might start idolising Mohammed, and start praying to him, or worse start praying to the picture - when in reality Mohammed is just the messenger, and Allah is the one to pray to. So buy making a picture of Mohammed, a Muslim might go the wrong way in his religion and damage himself - that's why it is forbidden.
Non-muslims wouldn't be affected by that. There's no reason why a non-muslim shouldn't hang a picture of Mohammed on their bedroom wall; it doesn't put their soul in danger. And caricature or insults are not a religious problem either. Sure, insulting Mohammed isn't nice to a Muslim, just like saying "your mother is ugly" isn't nice to anyone, and you shouldn't do it, but there is no offence to the religion.
Like most pre-1969 first ammendment rulings, Chaplinksy v. New Hampshire was likely overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio. Subsequent cases like R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul and Snyder v. Phelps would suggest that the "fighting words" doctrine is pretty much dead letter now.
Wrong.
For reference, see the ongoing crap from right wing evangelical Christian wingnuts regarding women's reproductive rights, same-sex marriage, young Earth, Intelligent Design, anti-evolution in schools, prayer everywhere (for Christians).
People pick the parts of their religion that fits their agenda.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
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
There's no reason why a non-muslim shouldn't hang a picture of Mohammed on their bedroom wall
It doesn't match my curtains?
As far as I can tell, all he really said was "if you say something insulting you cannot expect there to be zero consequence", which is pretty much true. If I insult you, I cannot reasonably expect you to be happy about it, and you being unhappy is going to have consequences (your opinion of me will drop, you may choose to avoid associating with me, you may express your dislike of me to others and affect their opinions of me, etc). He also said that murder was over the top as consequences go, which is also (in my opinion) true.
I don't see how acknowledging reality makes him less hip/with-it, given that (in my opinion) much of his hipness came from the fact that he was willing to acknowledge reality on other topics.