Originally posted by ColCurious
reply to post by queenannie38
Originally posted by queenannie38
But I can't defend someone who uses that same freedom to incite attacks against other people.
And that's where we disagree.
We should absolutely defend our freedom of speech, EVEN when it's abused by ignorant idiots.
The content anyone chooses to express CAN NOT negate this fundamental constitutional right. EVER.
The way to cope with an insult is to #ing grow a pair and get over it.
That's what we teach minors in kindergarten, isn't it?
Is it really asking too much to expect the same level of maturity of those religious nuts who are running rampant in the middle east?
If we start to restrict our freedoms whenever someone feels offended, where do we draw the line?
I don't think we disagree so much as I do not express myself as well as I'd like to. And I'm seeing more behind your initial reply as the
discussion continues, helping me, hopefully, to clarify my own.
I do agree with you about 'where do we draw the line?' because the whole idea behind freedom of speech is that there is no line to draw.
I also feel maybe that if we could ask Chris Stevens if he had any second thoughts on what happened in regard to their perceived offense, and why he
was there, himself...and freedom of speech...that he might very well say he considers himself to have died with his boots on....that's the way I see
it. He was a brave man, from all reports, and dedicated, and surely was very aware of the situation and the risks. That doesn't mean I agree with the
thread that states he 'got what he deserved.' That is taking it to an extreme, imo.
However, you said this to someone else in this thread:
J. Christopher Stevens' family has a reason to complain.
Anyone who feels his imaginary prophet was insulted on youtube does not.
And the point I am trying to express but to which effort I am not being effective, is maybe not solely based in our right to freely express
To use that right to knowingly provoke others for one's own aims, either without consideration for, or worse even, being fully aware that, it is more
than likely and even probable if not certain, that such an exercise will result in someone's death, seems to me to be bordering on ideas like
It is selfish and childish and while those traits don't restrict anyone's right under the first amendment, they have, in this case, I think,
infringed on other rights of other people...and now there are four families mourning a loss that might have been preventable...but not necessarily
given the situation in the ME...without the mentality behind this person's exercising of their rights.
This might have happened regardless...but it might not have, too...the circumstances might have been such that these four would not have died. Or if
they did, it would have been because of the expected potential conflict arising from actions broader than one person's ill-advised endeavor.
I can't justify the violent response...but I can't help but put some blame on the film-maker...not because he chose to exercise his first amendment
rights but because of the reason for which he did so and the knowledge he had to have had regarding the consequences.