Crhristianity? Should it develope a sense of humour about itself?

[Bill3000]

Why? Why let morons speak, if you have to: do it over the internet, I'll stick with my countries choice to rid itself of hateful morons, go to prison and think what responsibility freedom of speech entails, if you don't get it then, then F off out of my country, hatred is not wanted here.

Of course it's not wanted. But it's possible to correctly show that it isn't an opinion you should have (through the public outcry against such an opinion) instead of infringing on freedom of expression for a matter which doesn't harm someone other than how it subjectively offenses them. Besides, what would be considered hatred entirely depends on the society; hatred against muslims being acceptable after 9/11, for example.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

@Sidhe: Who decides what is and isn't hate? In a democracy, the majority, which means essentially that you would end up criminalizing unpopular speech.

 

[ironduck]

Eran, exactly. The problem with using such vague terms as 'hurt' and 'corrupting minds' is that anyone can accuse anyone else of that. During the cartoon controversy the term 'offended' was thrown around a lot. Anyone can claim offense at anything.

Laws that specify illegal speech as direct encouragement to commit violence against specific people or specific groups of people are far more useful.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

And that makes it freedom of speech, you can say whatever you like, and whether you offend or not is irrelevant? Good idea/bad idea? Or should there be limits on ******s mouthing off too against ******s?

I just meant to say that someone being offended is not a immediatly a reason to not consider a joke or a mocking remark not freedom of speech.

What a strange sentance

Uhm ... What Ironduck & Eran said.