News-Record.com

Very well said, Peter.

I think some people need to consult a dictionary again. Free means free, and speech means speech. Please tell me when the rules were changed so that those outside a religion are forced to adhere to its tenets. By this logic, I, or anyone else for that matter, can never again criticize Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, or Fred Phelps, because doing so would obviously offend their followers. I certainly believe in trying to get along with people who have views different than my own, but if you're saying people are not allowed to voice unpopular or offensive ideas then you don't really believe in the principle of free speech at all.

Scott_Free,

I may be wrong, but I took Peter's message to be all about speaking and acting responsibly. Just because you are free to do something does not mean it is the wise or the right thing to do. I may think someone is ugly or dumb as a fence post but saying it (which I have the freedom to do) to that person is not right or wise.

With freedom comes responsibility.

Thank you Yvonne,
My sentiments exactly.
Most people tend to miss your important point. Public debate and free speech are not always used properly or in the correct context. Most people *imo* tend to lean toward personal attacks instead of focusing on the issue.

Who made a personal attack? I certainly didn't. What no one is explaining is who gets to decide what is offensive? I think the Danish newspaper printed an idea deserving of expression -- it was actually critical of violence. What is offensive about that? If ideas such as these can't be expressed, then we're just dumbing down critical thought.

Modification of free speech is an essential component of tyranny.

Monitering your own free speech is a sign of maturity. Anyone can say anything they want. But self restraint is not only mature, it is wise.

THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.

Yvonne, it gets back to the definitions of what one finds offensive.

Offense is a choice of one's will. I see and hear things every day that could offend me but I chose to not let it happen.

The emphasis should be for those people to find something offensive to control their actions, not restricting people from what they can and can't say.

Freedom of Speech is the cornerstone of our way of life and should never be tampered with.

"This issue clearly illustrates how free speech cannot be a peaceful human right unless tempered with strong personal integrity grounded on principles of tolerance and respect for our fellow man, his faiths and the rules therein."

Yeah I wish the rioting murdering Muslims would show strong personal integrity grounded on the principles of tolerance and respect for their fellow man (including non-Muslims), other faiths, and the rules of therein.

It needs to work both ways Peter and I see zero tolerance from some of these Muslims (notice I said some, not all) regarding others faiths. No, we are simply infidels that need to be killed off. Respect must be earned, and these people are doing the exact opposite of what is needed to earn respect, while the more peaceful ones look the other way.

ScottFree, I noticed no one responded to your point that if we adhere to so called "responsibility" and "maturity" when using freedom of speech, then we shouldn't criticize Falwell & Robertson, lest we offend their believers. Excellent point. These guys get raked over the coals weekly. Need I say double standard?

Hugh,

It is your choice whether to make a comment or draw a picture that you know will spark anger or hatred. Just as it is my choice to refrain from intentionally doing something to spread more hate and anger. Apparently we would make different choices.

Dan,

I take seriously my responsibility to do not harm, when it is within my power to do so. I often fail. But there is a difference in doing no harm and speaking out aganist hypocrisy.

Yvonne,

I do not agree with your opinions. I am now angry and filled with hate at your posts. They make me angry. With my anger comes hate. You are now on notice that posts by you will offend me. And make me angry. See above for hate. Please stop posting. Never again. Ever.

Seriously though, I think I see your point on this one, that it would be ideal for people to not go out of their way to offend. Take the high road and treat everyone with respect. But censorship, even self censorship, is not in line with free speech. Rare is the opinion or political stance that will not offend someone, somewhere in some manner.

I'm sure you have a stance on abortion. Without needing to know what it is, I'm sure you will agree that your stance will anger and offend some people who believe something else. Do you have the right to speak out in support of your opinion, even at the risk of offending others?

Should we go out of our way to be offensive? No. Do we have the right to be offensive if we want to? Yes. Do we have a right not to be offended? No.

The limits and effectiveness of free speech is really only tested when the speech is offensive, unpopular, or even flat out wrong-headed. A discussion on the wrongness of murder does not test our freedoms. A discussion on racial supremecy does.

By the way, I hope you realize that the first paragraph is done completely in jest. Your posts in no way make me angry or hateful.

Swanks,

We have disagreed before and I have never known you to be disrespectful. Of course I know your tongue was in your cheek to make a point.

Thing is, I see voicing an opinion and being delibrately antagonistic as two different issues. And I see free speech and intentionally trying to stir crap as being different.

Now please do not take this as my being on a high horse. But you seem to be disregarding intent. If you are intentionally trying to offend me, I see that as different than offending me unintentionally. In the first instance, you would be acting willfully in a mean-spirited way. In the second example, your intent is not to be spiteful or hateful. In both instances, you are exercising your freedom of speech. However, I am going to feel a lot differently about you as a person if you are the type to intentionally hurt/offend as opposed to unintentionally hurt/offend.

Does that make it any clearer where I coming from when I talk about free speech and responsibility?

I must say I'm a little surprised that the known Republicans on this blog are standing up for complete freedom in speech while the known Democrats are supporting the curbing of any free speech that will offend.

This letter came across as artificial to me.

I'm not sure why. I just didn't feel that the writer was genuinely concerned.

Yellowdog,

Your statement about "known democrats are supporting the curbing of any free speech that will offend" is a sweeping generalization and incorrect. I am a known democrat and I am not supporting the curbing of free speech. I am ADVOCATING responsibility along with free speech.

You yourself have done that several times in the past few days. You have indicated folks need to think before they speak (type), refrain from saying what they damn well please and show a little respect for the thoughts of others. Do you see this as "curbing any free speech that will offend"? Or do you see it as showing responsibility for the cause and effect of what one says and does?

I am a Democrat too---better of two evils, and in being such, support unfettered free speech.