I think “me” and “anon” relay the idea that there is a difference between expression of critical thought, and mere insult/provocation. i.e. Critical expression = “good”, but mere “insult” = bad.

There are situations with no clear line between where critical expression ends and insult begins. We can all agree that there is subjectivity in insult - there is a spectrum of sensitive issues/people. That is not to say that most statements cannot be grouped with some measure of “common sense”, as to which group it belongs to. It is not impossible to have a fairly objective view of whether something is meant to insult/annoy/provoke - for example, to ask after someone’s mom in not a nice way.

Whether this involves a religious/racial issue or not, whether it involves critical analysis or not - most statements can be clearly seen to annoy/insult/provoke, regardless of subjective intent of the sayer or the receiver. Discussions over certain issues tend to get more volatile - be it race/religion/family - we all know that and exercise common sense and restraint in our everyday lives. It is not impossible to identify these areas. Take the religious aspect out of this discussion, and it boils down to something akin to asking after one’s mom - it is wise to refrain from doing so, whatever the justification, (least of all on the justification of free speech).

Where an issue falls within a grey or a sensitive area, the point i (and i think some others) wish to make simply is, that we should exercise some maturity and self-restraint. Approach it in a respectful and restrained manner. And Don’t ask after people’s mom in a not nice way in the name of freedom of speech.

If other people get worked up/misunderstand you, say sorry you didn’t mean that, that you didn’t mean to get them worked up. Not “STFU i have freedom of speech I will say what I want and I will say some more”.

This is not bowing to oppression. This is basic manners (and what keeps you from getting bashed up when you go out onto the streets!).

To reiterate, the context of wrongful and violent reactions, does not mean that we should therefore purposely speak out to show that we are not scared and are not bowing to oppression. We are not chao ahbengs defending our turf (no disrespect meant to ahbengs ;P). If anything, we should be more careful and restrained, to protect ourselves if nothing else. In the context of States, they should be even more careful of their very public stances - even the United States government knows that.

Just to round up, my personal view of the context is : to republish incendiary cartoons (within the context of violent reactions), i think, falls clearly within the unacceptable group of actions. It is provocation and it is insulting. It falls clearly within a sensitive area. It simply should not be done.

It is not wise to react to violent reactions, by further provoking violent reactions, in the name of freedom of speech.

surely you don’t expect to be taken seriously when you say that its justified for someone to bomb you and threaten to kill you when you satirise/parody/make fun of their beliefs?

Have you even seen the cartoons firstly? And secondly, you failed to acknowledge that much of the resultant anger derived from inflammatory ‘cartoons’ inserted by the Danish imams themselves.

And lastly, I strongly object to your assertion that just because we all live on Earth therefore we must bow down to those most oppressive to us.

This fact is clear: there are Muslims who want freedom and Muslims who don’t, and seek to extend their oppression to others, regardless of Muslim or not. If we do not stand up against these oppressors, then there would be no ‘moderate Islam’ to speak of, having been entirely taken over by these mad lunatics.

1) If you want to taunt someone, you have to be responsible for the backlash.

2) You can’t really NOT expect a measured backlash when you clearly mean to degrade, and not to criticise objectively.

3) We only have one Earth. Those who wish to stir up shit and link it all to freedom of speech should do so on Mars or something.

So essentially you have dissagrement and no room for debate. If war could be baked into a pot pie then those would definitely be two key ingredients. So now religions become war machines? As a rapper might say, “they need to check themselves.”

There is no need to apologise. The space does not cost me extra, so comment as much as you like.

My stance on freedom of speech is based on principles, and not expediency, so even though I might not agree with you completely, rest assured that your right to comment here is secure.

My mistake it is a bad idea to include sydney. I stand corrected. However, I hope you didn’t miss my point about not insulting.

BTW I am just a simpleton not well read.

It depends on who you are taunting.

“So basically what you’re saying is that we should hold off on criticising people when they’re violent lunatics, right? ”

No I am saying you should be aware of the possible backlash if you want to criticise. Critcism can come in many forms and can be worded differently. I do question the wisdom of publishing mocking cartoons. What do you think they are trying to acheive with the cartoons? What do think they are trying to communicate with those cartoons?

“Doesn’t that mean you’re trying to say that the best way to stop people from saying things you don’t like to hear is just to be a violent lunatic and threaten to bomb and kill anyone who tries?”

Some people will do that and it is the reality of life. You can’t control them but you can control what you say to them. If I want to effect a positive change I wouldn’t want to antagonise them. I would want to understand, respect and hopefully be able to communicate their errors to them. Some might have even died trying but if it is a cause worthy of pursuing people will speak even if it means death.

“I think it is easy to say ‘common sense’ in theory, but hard to do in practice. The fact is that the feeling of being offended or insulted is subjective. That basically means that whether something is offensive or insulting or not varies highly depending on each individual’s sensitivities, temperament and cultural context.”

I think it is not difficult to differentiate an insult from a constructive criticism. Yes there are some grey areas but there are also definitely some clear cut ones. I think ME has given you an example. If you know the other party is a psychopath would you still choose to provoke that guy by publishing incedendary remarks, which could be avoided by gentle criticisms?

“Ah yes, finally you see my point.
Insult is subjective you know. Anyone can find anything subjective, depending on individual sensitivities. Bowing down to SOME people’s sensitivities means a slippery slope to fascist restrictions on free speech. Any psychopath, as you say, can just find anything offensive and start threatening bombs and deaths. Is that not what many of the protesters wdid?”

Again I would just like to say that there are clear cut cases of insult. I ask how can the cartoon be a constructive criticism. So far no one has answered. It looks to me, it is more an insult then a criticism. The cartoon can easily misconstrued as implying that all muslims are terrorist. I think that serves to divide and polarise the community with the us vs them mentality. It would be sad to see peace loving muslim be generalised under the same umbrella. Shouldn’t people criticise the fundementalist muslim instead of taking it out on the religion. It is after all the people using the religion for their agenda.

In the quest of rallying for the freedom of speech have people lose sight of what it is originally intended for. I think there is too much individualism in wanting to express views without considering the impact of the speech.

Do you see deathtreats as a loss of freedom of speech? If so, how does it help by insisting that people should have the right to comment and even make fun of other’s religious beliefs. Do you think the death treats will not come because of your protest? Where do you draw the line of freedom? Should people be free to rally against certain race? Is is just some ego trip about no one should control what I can say or want to say? If chaos happens with the freedom, I rather give up a bit of freedom for peace and harmony.

I guess I’ve taken much of your space. I apologise for sounding harsh. That is all I want to say. Thank you for letting me express my views.

Why not? Half of the students in schools I know seem to think that writing a summary of opinions expressed in ST articles is equivalent to writing a commentary on these articles.

I don’t know how much this anon knows about anything but he/she apparently doesn’t know much about the supposedly racial riots in Sydney. Behaviour counts alot too before any drunkard white aussie set upon any aussie dude of middle eastern background. The point here is not to defend anyone from that unfortunate incident but to indicate that it is not a simple matter of racial taunts between two different groups and escalating into something wrong wildly. It’s so unbelievable that someone can take to the local nation building press so willingly.

Let me help you out with what is constructive, and what is insulting and makes people feel like boiling mad.”

Constructive: “Perhaps you could improve your personal relationships by putting yourself in the shoes of your peers.”

Insulting: “You’re a dick.”

Get it?