Freedom of Speech (Things You Shouldn’t Say)

Yesterday I started a bit of series about 'Things You Shouldn't Say'. I'm not sure if after this blog I'm done (don't think so), but this certainly qualifies as an entry to this series.

~Part 2~

It gets more sensitive when the content of our speech reaches over boundaries like in subjects about religion, traditions, and countries; in short all subjects with a subject in humanity. We almost all agree, in the West, that freedom of speech is very valuable and should be maintained. We also agree you shouldn’t offend people. It automatically raises the question ‘What is off boundaries?’ Can we really just say anything we think? Cause if we do, we’re bound to offend people. And does the location, where you say certain things, count? Should we allow a foreign preacher saying things to his flock in our country? Is that off boundaries? Maybe we should not mingle? Or should we, because this is our country, not his, though it is his flock? What about the position a speaker is in? Should we limit what public figures say and does that mean the man on the street can get away with more?

Take for example the Dutch Wilders who plans to go to New York to speech against the build of a Muslim meeting/prayer(?) place on Ground Zero. Should that build be stopped? Maybe it’s good integration and it will bring the Muslims and Americans together? Who’s to say? Certainly not Wilders? Dutch cases might be his concern, if any, not American cases. Yet he uses the ‘Freedom of Speech’ argument to justify his support in New York dismissing possible danger he causes for the Dutch people, because now a lot of Americans and Muslims think that is how the Dutch people think about the Muslim society. He also dismisses the emotions of the Muslims who do want to integrate, but also like to be able to do their things in New York, and the possibilities the build can create. Casually, because he hides behind the ‘Freedom of Speech’ argument.

Yesterday I watched pieces of a British discussion program. They discussed if Jimmy Carr, a British comedian, went too far with a joke about military men who lost limbs and possibly would form a strong Paralympics team. Did he go too far or were people over-sensitive? Dissecting what he said it doesn’t seem that offensive. Those military men are strong, trained individuals and expecting them to excel in their sports if they make the Paralympics team is a compliment. Or isn’t it? The fact is, people were offended, but more people didn’t seem to be that offended. Did he cross the boundary? So how much ‘Freedom of Speech’ is Jimmy Carr allowed?

Those two are public figures, the former in politics and the latter in the entertainment. The man on the street has his opinions as well. Those opinions often translate into public opinions, whether it’s justified or not. In New York there’s obviously a group of Americans who are against the Muslim build on Ground Zero. I know of groups of people who hate an entire ethnicity and use their ‘Freedom of Speech’ to air their opinions. We can’t accept just anything from then, can we?

So what does ‘Freedom of Speech’ really mean? What Shouldn’t We Say? Can we draw a line? Can we brush aside a minority of people who are offended and let the general public have their laugh?