Im sorry, but this is really offensive, insulting and hurtful generalisation. I support "total" freedom of speech, (its one of my core values and Id imagine its as important to me as Islam is to muslims) but I really dont want to insult anyone.
Overall this place is really depressing considering how much hate is allowed in here and I have never seen so much racism in my life without actually looking for it and I have never felt so hated before for simply because what I am than on various muslim and Islam related discussion forums. Ive asked this before, on this forum too I think, and never really gotten a real answer, who is the judge to decide what is deamed as insulting speech that can be banned and what cannot be? Which is why I support the freedom of speech the way I do. I do not think a system can ever be worked that doesnt create a separate classes of people between groups that can be insulted and groups that cannot be based on what they believe in. I strongly feel the situation is alreadly like that in Finland.
You over generalised that people like me want to get away with insulting others, I over generalise that religious people like you want a free hand to insult the values of others but have their own values protected.
I think you have misunderstood my post and I honestly did not mean to offend anyone. Look all I was saying is freedom of speech already
exists. What
certain folk want is to remove the negative consequence of it. You can say anything you want in the UK - it's not like you'll get shot for it. But, you can be reported for some of those (offensive) remarks provided someone reports it to the police or authority (which is the other person's right!). So, essentially what certain freedom of speech proponenents want is to be legally allowed to criticise anything (by this I mean it cannot be categorised as an arrestable offence). The initial reasoning for the cartoon crisis
was freedom of speech (but, it was targeted more at eliminating the social taboos!) - the rest of the world jumped on the freedom of speech bandwagon AFTER muslims expressed disgust at the cartoons, thereby supporting my previous statement that people want the right to insult and get away with it. Perhaps not in finland or denmark, but certainly this view was expressed in the West.
You did raise a good question, which I shall answer:
''who is the judge to decide what is deamed as insulting speech that can be banned and what cannot be?''
This is down to two things:
Society (in terms of social taboos)
Government (in terms of legal issues)
That's it. An individual has little control over it in either matter - it's down to the masses.
P.s Again, to reiterrate; freedom of speech already exists and I have
no problem with that. In fact, I think it is good (to an extent) since it allows constructive criticism. But, what certain folk want to do is to a: break down social taboos (which is nigh on impossible) and break down the legal related consequences that protect certain individuals (such as those who follow a particular religion or ideology) - this innevitably leads to DESTRUCTIVE criticism!