Defending freedom of expression

So what are you suggesting? Where do you draw the line? On the one hand you say that people shouldn't be subjected to gratuitous and insulting comments. On the other hand you state that they have no right to be offended.

I don't believe that any right is absolute. Rights are decided by societies, often by countries. I don't want to live in a society where people don't have the right not to be subjected to gratuitous and insulting comments. Some people might want to have that kind of society, but I don't and I don't think most people in the UK want it either.

Compared with others, the UK is still a very tolerant society, but (to me) being British is also about protecting minorities and those prone to bullying. If that means curtailing free speech on occasions, I think it's a price worth paying.

People feel offended by many different things and their feelings may be hurt. So what? Why do some think that they – or everyone – should be protected from being offended or feeling hurt?

It should not need saying, but probably does, that I am not advocating gratuitous comments deliberately insulting other people or their beliefs.

dd re your comment at 21:55:46 about police not having resources to prosecute so what your neighbour did wasn't his fault, I'm afraid I don't follow your logic. What a person does is usually that person's fault. Whether the police have the resources to charge a person with a crime is a separate issue. It's also a separate issue from whether there is an adequate law to charge and prosecute someone for their actions.
My argument has been that we have adequate laws to prosecute people who commit crimes of inciting hatred. If these laws are not used there may be several reasons but I don't think those reasons include the idea that what a person does is not that person's fault.

To other posters: I don't agree with the notion that ideas and beliefs are part of a person. Ideas and beliefs can always be looked at separately from the people who hold them. This is obvious when you think about how often people change what they believe to be the truth about all sorts of things, and when you look at how over history ideas have evolved.
That doesn't mean I don't think people's emotions are involved. They are.

It's getting late, for me, and I can't think of the best arguments in favour of freedom of expression but there are plenty. There were plenty after the CH atrocity. I guess, for me it boils down to this: I think mockery of many, if not most ideas, beliefs and precious notions can be justified, even when I personally don't like the mockery or find it offensive, hurtful, upsetting; I do not think murder and terrorism on account of someone mocking one's idea or belief or precious notion can be justified. Ever.

Re reading my reply last night on my 'attitude' to Muslims- and cultural differences from country to country.

Fully aware that generalisations are dangerous, but the attitude of the general British people, overall, in town and rural areas, is so much more tolerant and accepting of Muslims, other ethnic and religious groups, and the concept of a multicultural Britain. Of course there are exceptions, too many perhaps and this has been shown up in the run up to Brexit... but generally speaking.

In France, it is a totally different kettle of fish- for all sorts of reasons, historical as well. Many of the older people still have very really memories of the Algerian war. 2nd, 3rd, 4th generation Muslims from the Magheb (North African ex French colonies) born in FRance, of parents born in France- are still excluded from a decent education, decent jobs and opportunities and upward mobility- in a way which is just not the case in the UK. And in rural areas, people practically turn green is you mention 'musulman'.

A number of Labour politicians have been censured for antisemitic comments. Were they justified in what they said? As far as I know, nobody incited anybody to murder. Should they have been allowed to say what they want?

I am a Christian, Jesus Christ has always been central in my life, if there had been a cartoon of him as a donkey I would have been so hurt and so angry . Why does free speech mean for many they can mock regardless of hurt, why the need to mock and hurt, I hsve no problem with people saying they have no faith but to mock and say to be,ieve in Christ is the same as believing in the tooth fairy, that poster could only have said this to mock and get a few giggles . How much worse for the mocking Muslims have to endure , the murders at CH was wrong but so was the extent of their mocking

I would actually say it could be more than that.
Religion goes to the heart of some people. It is part of themselves.

A hypothetical to thatbags.

If someone repeatedly drew heavily mocking cartoons of your mother/sister/daughter whoever, over and over again, that is ok by you?
And you had no idea when they would stop doing it?

Incidently, perhaps like granjura did, around that time I had a look at Private Eye cartoons. CH and Private Eye didnt compare. They weren't in the same ball park.
PE still managed to be funny if you like that sort of thing.

I am talking about the attitudes to Muslims in rural France and rural Switzerland - which is very different to mine. EG I do not see every Muslim as a terrorist or Islamist, etc.
I'm afraid, fairly recent French history in North Africa has a vere different influence on how Muslims are seen here. And in my part of rural Switzerland, people have perhaps never encountered any Muslim, and base their reaction on the populist press and politicians - whereas myself, having lived and worked with Muslims and people of every creed all my adult life, in a very multicultural UK town, as a 6th Form teacher- have a very different experience, and therefore a very different take, quite naturally. As is having part of our family who are Muslims too in another part of the world.

@thatbags

So it wasn't my neighbour's fault that he did what he did to me, because the police don't have the resources to prosecute? Strange logic!

The result is that I'm now so uncomfortable living here that I'm looking for a new property with all the expense and upheaval that will cause.

@roses

The cartoon I'm talking about wasn't mocking terrorists. It was insulting Mohammed.

No, of course it isn't as bad and I'm not defending the killing, but it was deliberately intended to incite hatred, which it did.

@thatbags

The picture was revolting. It wasn't just the hairy testicles. The cartoon was deliberately intended to insult, mock, whatever you like to call it.

Cheers, roses

Is a drawing, even a disgusting drawing, worse than killing someone?

No.

Is it even as bad?

No.

The grin was for Thatbags

I doubt if we have the police to prosecute.

Just as an example, I was sworn at (badly) and physically abused by my next door neighbour a few weeks ago. He doesn't like me and has in the past commented when I had a Vote Labour poster in my window (he flies an England flag in his garden, so I'm guessing he's not a Labour supporter). He also told a black delivery driver to "F* off to where you come from". I reported this to the police. He then rang my letting agent and contacted my landlord, verbally abused both of them, who also contacted the police. Don't forget I'm an over 60 year old who lives alone.

It took the police two weeks to contact me and a further week for them to come and see me, then another week to issue a harrassment warning to my neighbour.

The harrassment warning is no more than a warning, but can be used if it happens again, when my neighbour could be summonsed to a magistrates' court and issued with a harrassment order. Only then, if the order is broken does it become a criminal offence. I don't honestly think that would deter hardened bullies.

Can you describe your attitude to muslims, please, gj. I ask because I don't think I have one that's any different from my attitude to any person who isn't a muslim. Why would it be?

Of course, my attitude to violent people, people who commit murder over drawings, is different from my attitutde to people who behave in a civilised way.

In any case CH were actually mocking Islamist terrorists and those who would go along with it.

There is mocking - and much worse. Private Eye mocks, the British way- Charlie Hebdo didn't mock, it ... just canpt find the right, polite word- totally different to Private Eye- which is so much more 'subtle'.

I have been quite shocked, returned here after 40 years in the UK- to find that I had a totally different take on this to most of my French and Swiss friends here. And so is my attitude to Muslims too.

Aren't hairy testicles normal?

We're allowed to mock prophets and gods and other religious figures. CH has done plenty of mocking of other religious figures and ideas.

I agree that if members of Britain First incite any kind of hatred the people who do it should be prosecuted. We have the laws to do this. It is not the hate inciters fault if the laws are not used adequately. Who cares if someone complains about the proper application of laws?

Did you see the last cartoons before the murder, tb?

The one of Mohammed with hairy testicles wasn't commenting on any idea. It was just mocking Mohammed.