People who think mocking Muhammad should be outlawed

Do you believe that freedom of expression should have no limit? im quite interested by your future answer to this question.

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.

Don't count on it. I think we're already on a slippery slope, lets see what happens as time goes on.

Yes, i do think people should be banned from drawing the prophet. Not only do i think that it should be banned, but i also think that it should be outlawed in every democratic country. Which is inherently, the same thing as banning it.

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.

I am sure you have heard the slippery slop argument.

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.

Do you believe that freedom of expression should have no limit? im quite interested by your future answer to this question.

I believe in freedom of expression within the law, which means that you cannot make threats to kill or slander someone. However, I would never support generally making offence illegal as it is far too subjective, and would cover everything from the Charlie Hebdo images to the Qur'an itself.

There is no chain effect in my argument; one thing does not lead to another. I merely stated that you are misconstruing the truth by stating that there are only 2 outcomes. Hence, my use of the term false dichotomy.

Freedom of speech is already limited, it has never meant total and unbridled freedom.

You have two outcome though. Freedom or not. You don't have levels of freedom unless you seek tyranny.

That is very interesting. People on this thread, however respectable they may be, seem to think that it does not have any limit and should not.

How are we on a slippery slope? This shooting has not eroded or compromised freedom of expression...

That is a very simplistic argument, and simply not true.

I wasn't talking specifically about the shooting, I was addressing your assertion that we will always have free speech. If you look back in time, words and actions that were perfectly acceptable are now labelled sexist/racist/islamophobic. I'm not saying if this was a good or bad thing, I'm pointing out that there is restriction where there previously wasn't. If the islamist attacks continue and get worse as time goes on, I strongly suspect free speech will subtly become less and less free. You just watch.

It isn't an argument, it is a statement of fact. Freedom is a high bar and if you can't reach it you don't have freedom.

That is very interesting. People on this thread, however respectable they may be, seem to think that it does not have any limit and should not.