It can be an exceedingly complex and difficult question. In our society, we have the Supreme Court to help determine some of the finer distinctions. The Supreme Court Justices are supposedly bound to make their interpretations based on the Constitution. They are appointed in accordance with the system defined by the Constitution. It is not a perfect system, but it's pretty good.Yet even in our country there is often a change of standards. What would have been free speech 100 years ago might be hate speech today and vice versa. To take one example (which kind of surprised me) Most Americans have high respect for the Founding Fathers of the US. (I am assuming the same is in this country after reading posts #17 and #20). Yet here are some interesting things about the Limits of Free Speech in their Time. Blasphemy... had been a very serious offense in the colonial period.... Thomas Jefferson Chandler...was convicted but the court was verful to explain that this...was a crime against the public order. Crime and punishment in American history By Lawrence Meir Friedman , Stanford Professor of law who is the leading expositor of the history of American law page 100 It is important to note the definition of blasphemy was with a bad purpose to calumniate and disparage the Supreme Being and to destroy the veneration due to him. It does not prohibit the fullest inquiry, the freest discussion for all honest and fair purposes... it does not prevent the simple and sincere avowal of a disbelief in a supreme being. Repressive Jurisprudence in the Early American Republic: . By Phillip I. Blumberg , dean of law at the University of Connecticut 332-334 So, in the days of our Founding Fathers, it was considered "against the public order" (a form of hate speech so to speak) to commit public blashpemy. Now one may be able to argue that religion is less important modern American society and so we dont need it anymore. But the point I am coming at is that there is no definitive answer to the question of how much free speech should be. At the end of the day, we should try to just get along with each other. Especially when many of our views are similar
But the point I am coming at is that there is no definitive answer to the question of how much free speech should be. At the end of the day, we should try to just get along with each other. Especially when many of our views are similarTo give a better idea of what I am saying, lets compare with what the Founding Fathers believed with modern commentary of the Quran. (I've color coded the passages to make comparison easier). FOUNDING FATHERS Blasphemy... had been a very serious offense in the colonial period.... Thomas Jefferson Chandler...was convicted but the court was verful to explain that this...was a crime against the public order. Crime and punishment in American history By Lawrence Meir Friedman , Stanford Professor of law who is the leading expositor of the history of American law page 100 with a bad purpose to calumniate and disparage the Supreme Being and to destroy the veneration due to him. It does not prohibit the fullest inquiry, the freest discussion for all honest and fair purposes... it does not prevent the simple and sincere avowal of a disbelief in a supreme being. Repressive Jurisprudence in the Early American Republic: . By Phillip I. Blumberg , dean of law at the University of Connecticut 332-334 QURAN COMMENTARY BY MUHHAMED SHAFI USMANI according to a consensus of Muslim jurists, it [blasphemy] means vilification that is done to insult and belittle Islam and Muslims, openly and publicly. Honest intellectual criticism while conducting research into problem and rulings remain exempt from its perview. Maariful quran Commentary on 9: 12-16 http://www.islamicstudies.info/maarif/ page 321
Yet even in our country there is often a change of standards. What would have been free speech 100 years ago might be hate speech today and vice versa. To take one example (which kind of surprised me) Most Americans have high respect for the Founding Fathers of the US. (I am assuming the same is in this country after reading posts #17 and #20). Yet here are some interesting things about the Limits of Free Speech in their Time. Blasphemy... had been a very serious offense in the colonial period.... Thomas Jefferson Chandler...was convicted but the court was verful to explain that this...was a crime against the public order. ... ...So, in the days of our Founding Fathers, it was considered "against the public order" (a form of hate speech so to speak) to commit public blashpemy. Now one may be able to argue that religion is less important modern American society and so we dont need it anymore. But the point I am coming at is that there is no definitive answer to the question of how much free speech should be. At the end of the day, we should try to just get along with each other. Especially when many of our views are similarAs I said, our Constitutional system for determining the limitations of rights is pretty good, but not perfect. It wasn't until the 14th amendment extended the Bill of Rights to the individual states (1866) that the states were "bound" by them. And this statement ( "It is not the business of government in our nation to suppress real or imagined attacks upon a particular religious doctrine, whether they appear in publications, speeches or motion pictures." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy_law_in_the_United_States) did not come out of the US Supreme Court until 1952. IMO, they eventually got it right. While I agree with you that we are all better off if we apply common courtesy in our speech with others, if my brother chooses to pass out fliers on the streetcorner that say: "Mary was no virgin. Jesus was a bastard. Muhhamed was a fraud as are all of the world's great religions. Embrace atheism!" then I want my brother to be able to do so, without having threats on his life. And I want anyone who does threaten to kill him to be prosecuted. And not only that, I want any and all who wish to verbally or artistically deride the belief system (on which the threat to my brother's life was based) to be able to do so freely.
I don’t know what happened to the formatting, with the above post, going off the screen. If I caused it I don’t know what I did.
I don't know what happened to the formatting, with the above post, going off the screen. If I caused it I don't know what I did.It's the long lines of I.J. Abdul Hakeem: --------------- (but then much longer) The forum software has 'word-wrap' functionality, but if a word, like '----- etc' is is too long, it can't wrap.
I.J., will you please edit down the long ------------ lines in your post #41, so that the posts will fit the screen? That may fix the problem.
One way to handle it if you are quoting is to go into the quotation, figure out the length of a line in the standard screen, go to that point on each line and do a hard return. That forces the line to end there and go down to the next line. If you want to be fancy, you can then go the the end of that short line, add a space, remove the return then repeat the first, above.
That doesn’t fix the original post but your reply will look far more intelligent than the original, sloppy post.
(Yes, you’re right that I hate it when people don’t respect the readers enough to format their posts when they insert a prewritten tract.)
Occam
Ok. I shortened them.
Ok. I shortened them.Thanks, I.J., You are a gentleman.