I've not seen the content of his work, so I couldn't judge.
I was more referring to your two questions in your title and OP, as well as Sannu's contributions.
Both seem to have strong convictions and both are perhaps contentious. For me, it is action which is in question.
Freedom of expression (a perhaps more inclusive term than freedom of speech) for me would not include violence unless it could be justified with self-defence (unlikely to be the case in this instance).
Freedom of expression which incites, or may incite harm to others is possible with satire, cartoons and journalism.
If we have two sides, both of who have strong convictions are being contentious, then perhaps the best recourse is negotiation and compromise, not violence, stubbornness and hatred from either side.
There are 1,000 posts available here, however. I doubt this thread will run out of space if it were to be discussed here...and you did raise the subject of conviction and contention in your posts here.
I don't think people do have the right to incite hatred, or harm to others, but yes, diplomacy, or legal means would be the way to object in my opinion.
Without knowing the details, it doesn't look likely that the gunmen were in a position of self-defence, ergo the killings are not likely to be justifiable in my opinion.
As for your title question, it would depend upon the content of the material whether journalists and cartoonists have a right to criticise religion. If the material is propaganda, inciting hatred, or action to harm, then no, I'd say they don't have a right to do that.
If we were to look at WWII propaganda, journalism and cartoon images, I wonder how it would compare to current material.
I'm not sure we can just sit back and claim satire is always okay because we're the goodies and they're the baddies.
If you have moral, ethical, or practical arguments for, or against the death penalty, or any other penalty, then surely you must consider the moral, ethical, or practical issues of the crimes themselves, particularly in the case of mandatory sentencing.
As I understand it, execution is recorded as homicide on death certificates. What makes one homicide acceptable and another not?
I found the anaesthesia being used for caesarian sections interesting. I know someone who felt everything even though she was unconscious, as I did having a spinal anaesthetic. As I understand it, the realisation that some people feel everything under anaesthetic is currently being researched.
The wiki article also pointed to executed prisoners having too low a dose of the drug in their system to achieve unconsciousness. Given it only lasts for 5-10 minutes, I think it said, there seems to be a lot of room for error.
So, you don't think a gas engineer who made a mistake should be treated differently from someone who deliberately caused an explosion with the aim to maim and kill?
Human error should perhaps carry mandatory whole life tariffs?
jac_the_gripper Forum Posts (5,363)
RE: Why do people go on dateing sites when they don,t really want to date?
This isn't just a dating site.That's why there are options for friends, talk, email, penpal, etc.
Just sayin'.