Blasphemy On Facebook In The Name Of Free Speech

In the name of free speech, can anyone indulge in profanity or vulgarity. Can anyone be insulted on the basis of their religion, cast, color, creed, sex, or background. There are limitations to free speech. Free speech doesn’t mean that anyone can do or say anything and justify their ridiculous behavior by calling it free speech.

Many Muslims have come forward and said that all we need to do is indulge in peaceful dialogue to show them to show them that they are wrong. It is praiseworthy on the part of Muslims that they have called for a peaceful method of solving the problem. However, the offenders already know that they are wrong. They know that free speech does not mean hurting the sentiments of other people. They know that they have gone against their own values. They know that they have caused Muslims pain.

When the cartoons were drawn in the Danish newspaper, the cartoonist started to receive death threats and ran for his life. While they called the cartoons a part of free speech, they were very quick to call the threats wrong. I wonder why threats are not included as part of free speech. After all, the people threatening should also have a right to say what they want, according to the theory of free speech that is used to justify blasphemy.

The Danish newspaper that had published the cartoons of Prophet Mohammad (S.A.W.) had refused to publish cartoons of Jesus three years prior, because it would provoke an outcry among Christians. It shows the double standards of the western world concerning free speech.


4 thoughts on “Blasphemy On Facebook In The Name Of Free Speech”

  1. @Mohammad: The difference between insults and threats is that, while they are both upsetting inconveniences, insults invite communicative reaction, and could be ignored, but threats can’t be ignored and invite physical reaction.
    An insult is a fishing comment from one who doesn’t like or understand your viewpoint, intended to express contempt, solicit further clarification of your point or to make you reconsider it, and as such can actually be perceived as a compliment, albeit an unenlightened one–to talk at all is far better than to shoot;–they’re giving you the choice of whether and how to reply, and are implying that they are ready to communicate some more.
    A threat, on the other hand, implies by default that communication is at an end and blows are impending, and justifies a blow in response.
    Bridging the gap between Islam and the rest of the world is a challenge, isn’t it? So how’re we doing, Little Buddy? 🙂

  2. I understand and sympathise with your views, I only wish this applied in the UK. I am a christian and become deeply offended when the name of Jesus is abused and made fun of. Unfortuanely our laws on free speach mean we have to put up with this. The only way we can deal with this is to know that God does not need to defend himself, and we do not have to either, it is we who are offended not God. This is our truth and this sets us free
    Pat Webb

  3. hopefully this post doesn’t appear multiple times (it seems to freeze once i try to post my comment.. not sure if it’s actually posting), but all I really wanted to say was fantastic post and thanks for sharing.

Leave a Reply