Master_Pedant wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
I am torn.
On the one hand, my liberal side says that if one wants to draw Mohammed, burn a US flag, wear a pink triange, paint swastikas on one's house or depict Christ and Mary Magdelene in mid-coitus (or Christ and John for that matter), then one is free to do so.
On the other hand, my pragmatic side says why would one deliberately engage in provocative expression without some larger goal in mind? Taking a privileged, provocative act just because one can strikes me as an invitation to an unnecessary response.
Is speech any freer or free speech any safer from constraint because of this?
The possibility of violent reprisal is an infringement on the right of free speech. A is offended by what B says. Does that give A the right to physically harm B?
ruveyn
Ruvyen, didn't you once approvingly quote Friedrich Nietzsche saying "Might makes right" when refering to the slaughter of indigenous North Americans?
You make you point. What I should have said is that is is not ethical for A to kill B just because A disapproves of what B says or writes. The question of whether A can
get away with killing B for whatever reason is a matter of superior force.
In any case it is a practical insanity for people to kill each other because they don't like what is said, or expressed or thought. Why? In no time flat half of society would be dead. Then in short order the half of the remainder etc. etc. Killing for mere disapproval is suicidal on a societal scale.
If the Prophet (PBUH) is in Paradise then what difference does it make if someone draws a picture of him. And if the Prophet (PBUH) is not in paradise what difference does it make if someone draws a picture of him.
ruveyn