I like this new pope: freedom of speech edition

[Ironchew]

Apparently the head of the RCC had something to say about religious mockery:

MANILA, Philippines — Pope Francis suggested there are limits to freedom of expression, saying in response to the Charlie Hebdo terror attack that "one cannot make fun of faith" and that anyone who throws insults can expect a "punch."

"One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people's faith, one cannot make fun of faith," he said. "There is a limit. Every religion has its dignity ... in freedom of expression there are limits."

The same "God will not be mocked!" special pleading. Your criminal organization deserves an onslaught of mockery -- if Catholics believe they have divine backup, they shouldn't have anything to worry about.

[dpareja]

[Canadian Mojo]

Apparently the head of the RCC had something to say about religious mockery:

MANILA, Philippines — Pope Francis suggested there are limits to freedom of expression, saying in response to the Charlie Hebdo terror attack that "one cannot make fun of faith" and that anyone who throws insults can expect a "punch."

"One cannot provoke, one cannot insult other people's faith, one cannot make fun of faith," he said. "There is a limit. Every religion has its dignity ... in freedom of expression there are limits."

The same "God will not be mocked!" special pleading. Your criminal organization deserves an onslaught of mockery -- if Catholics believe they have divine backup, they shouldn't have anything to worry about.

I'm sure this is going to go over really well with the French Catholics right now. I wonder if they will suggest he take off his pointy hat before shoving his head up his ass?

[Sigmaleph]

The right to liberty of expression comes with the "obligation" to speak for "the common good," Pope Francis said, cautioning against provocation.

And who decides this common good? The Church? Because then this reduces to nothing more than "say what you like, as long as I agree with it".

Free speech is the right to say things that other people don't want you to say. It's not limitless, obviously, but the limit cannot be "nobody objects to it", because then it's pointless. After all, there's no need to have a special protection for speech that nobody objects to.

[Ultimate Paragon]

Honestly, that's a massively insensitive thing to say in the wake of this tragedy.

[Sylvana]

I think I saw something about the Pope clarifying his stance saying that there are limits to freedom of speech, but no speech is deserving of death.

He is largely correct, the protections of free speech exists to protect freedom of speech from the oppression of government, and in a way large religious organizations. However, that freedom is not consequence free. If you provoke someone with your speech you can expect some kind of reaction.

As everyone has said though, there is no justification for violence and murder regardless of the provocation.

[Sigmaleph]

"Freedom isn't consequence free" is too broad a statement. I've said this many times before, but if the only consequences you are protected from are from the law, then you speech is not really that free in any meaningful sense.

But that's not the angle I want to push here. The Pope says that punching someone for insulting your mother or your religion is a justified reaction. On the one hand, I'd like to think he was making a joke, and doesn't actually think that's a justified response, merely illustrating a point (that's how I read it, anyway). On the other, it seems to me that the reasonable reaction to the shootings (which he agreed were an "aberration") is to say "violence as a reaction to offensive speech is always off-limits". Using a punch in the face as an example or a reasonable reaction to provocation kind of undercuts that point.

I'd like to think everyone, no matter where we stand on the whole "freedom from consequences" thing, should agree on at least a two basic consequences speech should be protected from. One is the government, the other is violence. Without as little as that, we are no longer talking about freedom of speech in even the loosest of senses.

[Old Viking]

It was observations such as this that had me waving bye-bye to the RCC more than 50 years ago.

[Vypernight]

So much for, "turn the other cheek."  Guess that's out of context as well.

[Sylvana]

I'd like to think everyone, no matter where we stand on the whole "freedom from consequences" thing, should agree on at least a two basic consequences speech should be protected from. One is the government, the other is violence. Without as little as that, we are no longer talking about freedom of speech in even the loosest of senses.

While I can agree that speech like that should be protected from any kind of violence. One must also understand that speech either though motivation of insult can lead to people becoming quite emotional and unable to retrain themselves. That is why courts tend to consider if someone was provoked into violent action. I felt this was more what the pope was trying to imply.

[RavynousHunter]

Doesn't excuse the bastards that kill people that say things that hurt their pwecious fee-fees.  (Not implying anyone here is saying that, of course.  I'd like to think most people here are far more level-headed than that.)

Honestly, I think the whole "he provoked me" thing shouldn't...really factor in very much, at least not in any legal way.  Seriously, if I'm having a conversation with someone, and someone else hears me say "yeah, and Jesus was a goat-fucker like the rest of his Bronze Age contemporaries," and they get all pissy and attack me, they shouldn't be able to use the claim "he provoked me" as any sort of defense.  That's the kind of logic a child uses, "he made me mad, so I hit him."  You still made the choice to attack me, you should still get the shit beaten out of your ass by the legal system.  Its like that "crime of passion" bullshit you hear from time to time: hubby find wifey fucking another guy and, in his idiot rage, he kills them both.  "Oh, but he wasn't thinking clearly!  He was all angry and stuff!"  He still made the choice to pick up the loaded shotgun, aim it at his wife and her fuck-buddy and pull the trigger.  Unless he is verifiably, legally nuts, then he should be held as responsible for his actions as a man who simply shoots his wife for insurance money.

[Askold]

...

Actually, IF you are trying to provoke someone on purpose they should be allowed to use it as an "migitating circumstance" or whatever the legal term is. Depending on the type of retaliation the provokation may matter more or less. Certainly killing someone because of what they said is going too far but things like religion and mothers are sometimes touchy subjects and people who insult those simply because of the "freedom of speech" should expect some kind of reaction.

For example, if we had an article where someone walked in to another persons wedding and started shouting that the two brides should burn in hell for being homosexual and insulting them and everyone involved I think the people here would agree they deserved the punch they got (but we would probably still draw the line somewhere and not consider it appropriate response if the said protestor got disemboweled and was then eaten alive.) But when the topic is about insulting religion suddenly "bronze age beliefs" and other such comments are raised and any kind of reaction (even when the reaction is merely verbal and polite) is suddenly too much and the religious people should "grow a thicker skin."

[R. U. Sirius]

Seriously, if I'm having a conversation with someone, and someone else hears me say "yeah, and Jesus was a goat-fucker like the rest of his Bronze Age contemporaries," and they get all pissy and attack me, they shouldn't be able to use the claim "he provoked me" as any sort of defense.  That's the kind of logic a child uses, "he made me mad, so I hit him." 

You should remember that a large minority of people, at the very least, never outgrow the mindsets and thought patterns they had as children.

[Sigmaleph]

I'd like to think everyone, no matter where we stand on the whole "freedom from consequences" thing, should agree on at least a two basic consequences speech should be protected from. One is the government, the other is violence. Without as little as that, we are no longer talking about freedom of speech in even the loosest of senses.

While I can agree that speech like that should be protected from any kind of violence. One must also understand that speech either though motivation of insult can lead to people becoming quite emotional and unable to retrain themselves. That is why courts tend to consider if someone was provoked into violent action. I felt this was more what the pope was trying to imply.

If he was, he was doing a shitty job of it (or maybe I was doing a shitty job of reading it). There's a difference between understanding an emotion and endorsing it; it is absolutely true that people get angry when you insult something dear to them, and that anger makes them more likely to do violence. But the correct answer to that is not to say to the people who insult that there's a limit to free speech; it's to say to the people that get violent that their anger is understandable, but it can lead them to do the wrong thing. One of these things is wronger than the other.


As an aside, you probably shouldn't insult people gratuitously, it's an asshole thing to do. Remember, "it's my right to do it" is not the same as "it's the right thing to do", and it's perfectly possible to passionately defend someone's right to do something without endorsing the fact that they did it.

Doesn't excuse the bastards that kill people that say things that hurt their pwecious fee-fees.  (Not implying anyone here is saying that, of course.  I'd like to think most people here are far more level-headed than that.)

Honestly, I think the whole "he provoked me" thing shouldn't...really factor in very much, at least not in any legal way.  Seriously, if I'm having a conversation with someone, and someone else hears me say "yeah, and Jesus was a goat-fucker like the rest of his Bronze Age contemporaries," and they get all pissy and attack me, they shouldn't be able to use the claim "he provoked me" as any sort of defense.  That's the kind of logic a child uses, "he made me mad, so I hit him."  You still made the choice to attack me, you should still get the shit beaten out of your ass by the legal system.  Its like that "crime of passion" bullshit you hear from time to time: hubby find wifey fucking another guy and, in his idiot rage, he kills them both.  "Oh, but he wasn't thinking clearly!  He was all angry and stuff!"  He still made the choice to pick up the loaded shotgun, aim it at his wife and her fuck-buddy and pull the trigger.  Unless he is verifiably, legally nuts, then he should be held as responsible for his actions as a man who simply shoots his wife for insurance money.

Here's where I sort of disagree, because I think "responsible for one's actions" is a convenient fiction that hides the real question: how do I make this person stop killing people (or committing crimes in general)?

A person who kills someone in anger is not the same as a person who kills someone out of greed or whatever. If I'm willing to kill you for money, then I'm pretty much a constant danger to society; there's always someone who is in my way and I could be better off by killing (assuming I don't get caught). If someone kills someone else in a fit of anger, well, they are only a danger to people when they are extremely angry. If, say, you can give them anger management therapy to ensure it doesn't happen again, that's a hell of a lot better than sending them to prison, and the end result is a productive member of society.