I have been giving this some thought. I personally believe that freedom of speech and our right to say what we want is to be protected, that is, the state should not interfere.
however, there are laws like libel, slander ...etc to provide legal recourse to those damaged by untruth. However.... money doesn't always cut it.
I also believe that people have a choice not to be offended. However if the attack in very personal... like stating my mother wears army boots I maybe offended. If I was pissed off I may react and you may get a punch in the face. This would be considered acceptable in some circle of our culture.
Deliberate provocation over a period of time is recognised under law and is seen as a mitigating circumstance for any illegal action.
Now... the pope has come out...
Makes me think that Christianity if it had it's choice would go back 400 years and punish those that offend Christ.The Pope denounced “provocateurs” who mocked religion yesterday and said that they could expect to receive a punch, as he weighed into the aftermath of the Paris terror attacks.
Pope Francis criticised the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo for insulting Islam and said that he understood why Muslims reacted with violent anger.
He even threw a mock punch to illustrate a justifiable response from people who felt that their faith had been offended. “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.” Such people could expect a reaction, he said.
I know in the wests culture that taking the piss and making fun of someone or something is not taken to heart. Most times there is a strong element of truth in the humour. Some may be offended.
I believe our right to offend should be protected however does that mean no-one has the right to reacted if they take offence?
