Hans Bulvai wrote:A government's first priority is to ensure the safety and well being of their people.
Sure.
They calculated that this movie is not worth the trouble. They see no danger to their 'freedom' by choosing not to insult millions of people.
That's right. The danger that arises comes not from people who are insulted (to be insulted is a right everyone has) if that were the only thing, but from those among the insulted who think they should get physical with those who caused them to be offended or even worse, get physical with people who didn't make that movie but live in the same country as the offenders. They become blinded with rage. Those are the danger here: not a government who decides to curtail freedom of expression in a specific case. That only makes millions potentially disappointed in such a government that caves in to violent blackmail.
Some people define freedom differently than others. That is civil to me and deserves respect.
I think you mix the issues that play out here. It is uncivil to physically threaten people, let alone kill them, let alone kill people not involved directly but only working in an embassy of the same country. It is blind, criminal, vulgar rage of the very lowest sort. A sort one should
never cave into in my opinion; it makes you, as a government, complicit in allowing violent blackmail to hijack a fundamental right we have here that was fought for big time. There is no discussion here for me. Those violent arses deserve no respect whatsoever, should be brought before court and made to shut up.
Remains the question, which is what you probably refer to, if it is a good thing if a government restricts freedom of speech and expression
in general regarding various sensitivities within and among communities. If Jews feel insulted and hurt when in Germany
Mein Kampf would be freely available it can be taken into account, as depicting Muhammad in a cartoon can be equally offensive and hurtful which should be taken into account then as well...
to be fair. And there are ofcourse more groups that can be offended and hurt by the behavior of others. In Switzerland people did not like high mosques... offensive to their Christian soul and sensitivities, their dislike of immigrant Islamic cultural elements most probably.
My question to you is: how you going to arrange the law re. all those groups of people who may all feel offended for different reasons and by different behaviors of others... but who have one thing in common: the hurt and pain that can be equally intensive? How you measure the level of hurt? Should those who shout loudest and make the most threats get the most protection? I guess that can't be the case in a fair democracy and it is also very unwise because it becomes a precedent: the louder you shout and the more violent the threats... the more legal protection you get. That will get you into an arms race of laws to protect you from being mentally hurt by others. Which will feed right into the likes of Geert Wilders who can then claim that Muslims get away with violence or intimidation; it fuels polarization and tension between groups that are in the process of offending and hurting each other.
By the way, what do you think about them banning the Florida preacher from visiting?
I myself am against prohibiting any verbal or other expression, as long as it does not explicitly and intentionally incite to
physical violence. If that preacher wants to come and express his whatever opinion and it does not incite/invite explicitly to physical violence but that will no doubt hurt the feelings of many Muslims.. he should be allowed to visit Germany nonetheless.
There is only one "sin" that IMHO comes close to the offense of explicitly inciting to physical violence; the explicit and expressed desire to curtail free speech
and wanting to change our modern church-state separated democracies into a totalitarian dictatorship. That can be fundamentalist Muslims with a political agenda who love to see people hanged for a cartoon, but of course there are more groups who think along those lines. The
real Breiviks etc.
Would you apply the same standards to Western govt. officials who offer bounties, by the million, on the heads of suspected terrorists who don't even get a trial when they are blown to bits?
Sure. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a professional court. It is sad and a shame to see the West moving off the righteous path in many instances during its "war on terror".
Besides, the government of Pakistan distanced itself from that guy.
Yes. Read that too, good news.