Freedom of speech is that it should be entitled to violate other people and then defended for it!
Was going to stop writing about the upcoming trial
between me and Oslo police on Manglerud. But after reading the feature article
in VG today about freedom of speech posted further down. I will write a few
words!
Photo by Jan Aage Torp (insert Black Per Torp who has
a part in common with da Torp should have 1,000, - kr for each image of
himself) who has thrown out that his son is a lackey for his main opponent and
I think that corporal punishment belong in a total picture of giving children
the upbringing they need say the same Torp.
He taught that gays are a cancer in society. Which
also must and will be removed. I am a demon and desire lies. If someone gets provoked
by his Statements, as it Torps extreme views to be defended. There is freedom
of religion and freedom of speech so it should work! Although I and probably
most deeply disagree here!
Editorial freedom of expression without
"but"
This is particularly true among liberals, the left
side, and human rights activists. They do not support censorship, but they do
not like that expression can cause offenses - or that minorities are violated.
The problem is that such an attitude can be as great a
threat to free speech as full censorship. The freedom to offend is not just an
addition to free speech. It's very core. Not only undermines' but argument is
"the universal right to free expression, it compromises the fight against
prejudice and injustice.
Threat to freedom of expression is often associated
with government censors, with imprisonment of journalists, or violent
reactions. Such as the attack on satire magazine Charlie Hebdo, or the murder
of Ananta Bijoy Dash - the third atheist and blogger who is hacked to death in
Bangladesh this year.
But there is a more insidious threat. Whoever comes
from a culture that accepts that it is morally wrong to insult or offend.
It is a culture that has been developing in Europe in
the last twenty years. In the name of "respect" and
"tolerance", many liberals come to accept - even require -
restrictions on indecent speech. This is a form of censorship that is less
conspicuous one censorship in dictatorships and theocracies in, but "not
infringe culture" is just as dangerous.
We live in pluralistic societies, with a diversity of,
and often sharply conflicting perceptions. Many would argue that it requires us
utters us accountable, both to reduce friction and to protect the dignity of
people with different background.
Must challenge prejudices
In fact the contrary, it is precisely because we live
in a multicultural society that we need full freedom of expression. In a
pluralistic society, it is violating other both inevitable and necessary.
Inevitably, because where different beliefs meet, there will be conflict.
Necessary because conflicts have on the table and discussed, not suppressed in
the name of "respect" and "tolerance".
Accepting that some things can not be said, is to
accept that certain forms of power can not be challenged.
Freedom of speech is helping to create the conditions
for open debate, it is necessary to challenge repugnant views. I defend freedom
of speech, because I want to challenge prejudice.
All attempts restrictions on freedom of speech will meet
impossible problems. The most obvious, who will decide what is acceptable.
Always offensive to someone
A few years ago, shortly after the publication of
Mohammad cartoons in Denmark, came Iqbal Sacranie of Muslim Council of Britain
with derogatory comments about homosexuality on BBC. He saw it as an expression
of Islam's view on homosexuality. Many felt deeply humiliated.
Police launched an investigation of his alleged
"hate speech", 22 Muslim leaders reacted by writing a letter in which
they claimed the right to "freely express their views." Those same
leaders protested vigorously against the publication of Mohammed cartoons in
Jyllands-Posten.
In 2009, banned the British authorities the right-wing
populist politician Geert Wilders entry into the United Kingdom, because of his
unpalatable views. The decision did Wilders a martyr for free speech. Although
he will ban the Koran, because it contains "hate speech." Muslims
protest against this, but many of them want to ban The Satanic Verses.
In a pluralistic society, much of what we say, be
offensive to others. Almost by definition. If we reject the right to offend, we
reject effectively the right to free expression. We also reject religion. For
without the right to insult, it can not have freedom of religion. It is
implicit.
Who benefits from censorship? It is not those who are
oppressed, but those who have power to engage in censorship.
The principle of free speech is that it provides a
permanent challenge to the idea that some questions are beyond debate. Thus, it
is also a permanent challenge to authority.
If we restrict the right to offend, we limit the
ability to challenge the power - and the ability to challenge injustice.
The right to offend
Many liberals would argue that offensive speech
"kicking down" and is an expression of racism.
It may - sometimes. But there are those who argue this
miss, include the hundreds and thousands of Muslim communities in the West -
and in the Muslim world - that challenges religious reactionary ideas and
institutions; writers, cartoonists, political activists, who daily put their
lives at stake in the face of blasphemy laws, standing up for equal rights, and
fighting for democratic freedoms.
There are those we betray if we do not stand up for
the right to offend.
Kenan Malik (end of quote)!
Final Comment:
When I was growing up so I kicked football (until I
was forty years). But growing up in Karmøy so we always had a close match. It
was against a team that named Pol in Stavanger! They won we like rhyme always
around 10-0 against. A year as we won I think 11 - 1. When they scored the one
goal they were raving. So I am confident it will go in court. I and Meling will
win with revel digits of police and Torp!
But it says in a mountaineering rule, no disgrace!
More and more this matter will be known, as will police and Jan Aage Torp be
put more and more in a so bad light. So they will not withdraw the case, then I
am confident they will stand by, yes, Black Per!
Ingen kommentarer:
Legg inn en kommentar