11-03-2009, 08:33 AM
Quote:I really don't care what his reason is, nor should it matter. I want him to have the right to insult the Christians, French, Jews, Scandinavians, or the Muslims. I want him to have the freedom to say or insult whomever he pleases. Also, these Imams should also have the freedom to say whatever they like, and as long as they are not directly inciting violence we should ignore it. If we take their rights from them, we begin to police peoples thoughts. And then, we all lose. And saying that he wants to take away the rights from Islamic people should also not matter. We ignore him too.
Here's the catch, right. If Geert or some Imam says, "You should go blow up that building." And, then someone does it, then they may be considered to be an accomplice, or at least partially liable for inciting violence. But, there is a difference between saying that Islam is akin to Nazism, and calling for violence to be committed against persons or property. I'm not sure about there, but here it is illegal to make terrorist threats, or to incite violence.
It has been in the news here as well, where some talking head has suggested that we'd be better off if Bush, or Obama, or someone else were assassinated. I think this is borderline on free speech. But, it probably should slide unless someone actually follows through on the suggestion, and then that talking head should probably be held partially liable for inciting violence.
Kandrathe, I understand your point here. But I also think you use your own vague line to separate what is right and what is wrong.
If I am standing outside in the street and start insulting random people using deseases, their family, their faith, there is a good chance that I will get my but kicked. Because for some people insults will hurt more, I guess more than half of the population would agree that the person that hit me was right to do so. In other words, a law could be made in which it is legal to hit somebody when he insults you.
And who are you to draw a line between hitting somebody and insulting somebody....and if you don't would it be allowed to hit somebody just once? Or for times, and is kicking OK? And biting?
The difference between the freedom of speech and teh right to insult somebody is also a thin line, a border that will be different for different people. I'd much rather have a border between those two things, and a continuous discussion about where exactly that limit is than a border between insulting and hitting.
Geert Wilders, most of the time tries to stay on the good side of the freedom of speech/insult border while people like Nekschot (you know that that is the dutch word for the execution method the germans used to use in WO2?) and van Gogh clearly only want to provoke and insult. (and van Gogh clearly did this to become famous and rich). Again, the murder on van Gogh was a hideous crime and it is good that the guy who did it is put away for life. But we shouldn't become all nervous and say that freedom of speech doesn't exist anymore in Holland. This was one case of a very annoying person that was constantly saying horrible things, so in that sense the crime was comparable to any crime passionel or bar fight. Van Gogh's murder had nothing to do with politics, it was just an awful crime.
Geert Wilders on the other hand, mainly invents threats on his life.....every threat, or every attempt to arrest him yields him another few seats in parliament....so he makes sure he will create enough such diversions so that 1, he will be always in the news, and 2, will never have to discuss his political plans very indept. He continuously searches for the borderline between freedom of speech and insult.
One big example of what makes him tick, is the fact that his party (that made 'freedom of speech one of there spear heads) voted against the resolution to reprimand Berlusconi (see my other thread)....in other words, for state controlled media.