[pp.int.general] freedom of speech

[Reinier Bakels]

I know, the US is different. Allegedly, there are no objections to host 
neo-nazi websites in the US, while Americans get very nervous from seeing a 
woman's nipple for a couple of microseconds.

I value the freedom of speech, but I believe one should refrain from 
negative generalisations that are experienced as very unpleasant by certain 
communities, e.g. muslims. And the fact that such opinions are not seen as 
crimes or torts imho does not imply that one is socially allowed to say 
anything that is not against the law.

I referred to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a former Somali refugee, who became a Dutch 
parliament member and now lives in the US. After she quit Islam, and 
pubklished a lot about that, she became under threat. In our country, as a 
MEP she was protected by bodyguards, payd by the government. The US 
government refuses to pay her protection;"we never do that".

Imho somehow that makes sense. If you needphysical protection for your 
opinions, you are not a "good communicator".

> Religion is not a mandatory part of one's life. You can live without
> religion, and you can live with the notion of religious confusion
> (agnosticism).
> I think you're making the mistake that you must be able to attest
> publicly againt religion.
> Here in the States, you're allowed to public debate of religion. You're
> allowed to associate with one affiliation or another. The other side
> exists too: you can attest and debate atheism.
> Frankly, I don't think your theory of "freedom theft" by one political
> association holds true for all countries.
>
> I could just be rambling on about nothing again. Damned colds.
>
> Reinier Bakels wrote:
>> Perhaps an excellent example of the ambiguity of human rights is the 
>> debat about the "freedom of speech". Right-wing politicians claim this 
>> freedom to say very unpleasant things about religious and ethnic groups, 
>> and then want the government to pay their protection: Ayaan Hirsi Ali. 
>> Some even construe this right as the "right to offend".
>>
>> Don't get me wrong. I fully support the idea that anything can be said 
>> about (the substance of) government policy. Attacking people, and groups 
>> of people as such imho is not permissible.
>>
>> Also the mistake is often made that social norms are confused with legal 
>> norms. The "freedom of speech" basically means that the government should 
>> not normally interfere. But there are other norms, social norms of 
>> civilisation and decency. Thus the right to offend is pretty nonsensical. 
>> Again, all policy *substance* may be attacked.
>>
>> In sum, the "freedom of speech" has been hijacked by rigyht-wing 
>> politicians, so one should be careful to invoke it (under its name).
>>
>> reinier
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> ____________________________________________________
>> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
>> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
> -- 
> Glenn Kerbein
> Pirate Party of the United States
> "Burn, Hollywood, Burn"
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general