People who think mocking Muhammad should be outlawed

Any normal decent person would not try to purposefully annoy people; it's within people's rights to say bad things but tbh only dicks exercise that right in such a way.

Mocking the prophet comes under freedom of expression but if Charlie Hebdo was to mock the holocaust, I doubt people would cry "je suis Charlie".

There's double standards in the west. Mocking the prophet comes under freedom of expression but if Charlie Hebdo was to mock the holocaust, I doubt people would cry "je suis Charlie", so freedom of expression applies only when it suits certain people. France is not a tolerant country, some people can't even practise their faith in public because they are fined or arrested but mocking and insulting their beliefs isn't outlawed, freedom of expression, belief and religion should apply to all.

Apples and oranges. Old Mo was a paedo who died long ago; the Holocaust was less than a century ago and probably still in living memory of some, in which millions died.

So one sort of speech is different from another sort of speech. Makes sense.

I'd support someone who wants to mock the Holocaust, it's in freedom of speech. But to do so is more offensive than mocking Mo.

Yeah and everybody has the freedom to be offended as much or as little as they want.

Sure, but that doesn't make killing people acceptabe.

It does in defence and freedom of speech, but not in attacking freedom of speech. So people come with guns to try and stop freedom of speech other people are perfectly justified in shooting those people dead.

I have seen a number of people on TSR demand that mocking/insulting/satirising/even criticising Muhammad be outlawed, and that freedom of expression should not apply. But then, I have seen the same members post stuff that could be construed as offensive, either at people they respond to or in respect of Charlie Hebdo.

You can't have it both ways. You cannot expect the state to outlaw satire about Muhammad because it's offensive to you, but then think you should be free to say offensive things or to practise your religion freely.

Offensiveness is entirely subjective and relative. The following could be considered offensive, and thereby liable to being outlawed under this logic:


There is also a fine line between criticism and offence. Saying that 9/11 was an inside job may seem critical on the surface, but people could take offence at such a comment. Should people be arrested for saying that 9/11 was an inside job?

So, I think people need to think before they start demanding that "offensive" things (to them) be outlawed. My question would be: have you ever posted or said anything that someone could subjectively find offensive?

I disagree completely.

This is how you dig a massive whole for yourself to drown in.

Either people have the freedom of speech or they don't. Saying people have the "right" to constrain other peoples freedom of speech means they don't have freedom of speech. However this is normal muddle secularist get themselves in attempting to create morality from nothing. All they are doing is increasing the power of the government and creating a terrible tyranny the Protestants got rid of with the Glorious Revolution.

gr8 refutation bro you sure showed her

I'm not a Muslim, I'm white, British and atheist but I strongly believe that drawing Muhammad should be illegal.

In my opinion this should come under "inciting racial hatred".

Drawing Muhammad is pretty much the most offensive thing you can do to a Muslim, so why is it you can get locked up for using other racist terms when this is more disrespectful than them all?!

Furthermore, we've already seen the horrendous actions that this can provoke (actions which are abhorrent and can in no way be excused), so why do people keep doing it?!

There is no reason for non-Muslims to draw Muhammad, it is just plain narcissism and disrespect; free speech for the sake of it rather than for the benefit of anyone.

The terrorist attacks are disgusting and I in no way condone their actions. They had reason to be angry, but what they did was vile and can never be justified.

Nonetheless, I believe that Charlie Hebdo is a tasteless, reckless and racist magazine. Their only goal is to shock. It's not satire, it's racism. I feel for the victims of the attack, and their families; it was horrific and no person should have to go through that. Charlie Hebdo and people in general needs to realise that this particular topic needs to be avoided. Freedom of speech doesn't give you freedom to be racist. Charlie Hebdo oversteps the boundary from humour/satire to racism.

I'd support someone who wants to mock the Holocaust, it's in freedom of speech. But to do so is more offensive than mocking Mo.

Again with the apples and oranges; no-one would say that shooting armed assailants is wrong, and that's nothing to do with free speech.

Then, by this logic, the Qur'an and the Bible should also be banned due to their content which is likely to offend.



Satirising an ideology is in no way "racist". You would have been better to refer to our religious incitement laws, but these are incredibly narrow and would be highly unlikely to apply.



Probably because it's one thing to sit in your office, draw an image of Muhammad and publish it on your website, for which people have to actually navigate to to find it, and another thing to go out in the street and harass people with racist language. Your analogy is flawed, and I ask you again: should people be banned from publishing the Qur'an and the Bible, because that is where your logic extends?

In addition, it is foolish to measure offence by reaction - an entirely subjective and relative thing. A Muslim who doesn't really care about religion much may be indifferent to an image of Muhammad, but a gay rights campaigner may be absolutely outraged, and deeply offended, by passages in the Qur'an and the Bible. Under your logic, the latter is somehow more credible.



People keep doing it to show that they will not relinquish their right to free expression in the face of violence from fascists.



You don't need a reason for free expression. Regardless, many satirise Muhammad because he is held up as perfect figure, and they disagree with that notion. Others continue to draw Muhammad to protest against censorship.



The usual disclaimer, despite an underlying tone of victim-blaming going on in the post.



Again, satirising an ideology is not racist.

When you attempt to be dishonest, as you are being, were you come to this conclusion that there are only two possible outcomes, it is called a false dichotomy. There are so many other in between outcomes that you fail to draw a parallel with. Therefore, your statement above becomes rendered useless.