Perhaps "blackmail" isn't the right word. maybe "intimidation with threat" is better.

---

@iapetus_rocks wrote:

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

Sometimes, though, it's not the effect words have on you, but the effect they have on those who have the power to do you harm

---

Yes, this is a very good point. However, should we be content  to live in fear, under threat of violence from those in our society who would suppress our right to speak about things and issues which really concern us?

 

Blackmail is a crime and a real offence in law. I don't want to be blackmailed into silence by someone who has no other argument to offer me except  a threat of violence.

 

That's no way to live.

 

 

---

I think there are two separate issues involved here, Iapetus. Of course we should not allow ourselves to be ruled by threats or tyranny.  In many countries today the jails of are full of political prisoners who have had the courage to say "No." and who can forget the image of that young man standing in front of the tank in Tiananmen Square? But when I spoke of the effect of words on those who have the power to do  us harm, I was thinking of a different scenario.

At the risk of invoking Godwin's Law, what part did those appalling cartoons published in Der Sturmer in the 1930s play in convincing the German public that Jews were an enemy that had to be eradicated? If words have no power to cause harm and freedom of speech means everyone has the right to say whatever they like, do radical Islamists have the right to publish diatribes against Australian society? Should so called patriots have the right to incite hatred against Muslims? Should fundamentalist "Christians" have the right to print manifestos declaring "God hates f *gs?' Who draws the line, and where do we draw it?

ntemperate and iIl considered words can be very dangerous. When Henry II was engaged in a public power struggle with his chancellor, Thomas Beckett  he declared one day in front of his whole court "Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest." He swore afterwards that he was only venting, but four of his knights took him at his word, rode to Canterbury and murdered Beckett in front of the altar in his own Cathedral.

(Hastily edited for typos - we don't want to cause anyone to have conniptions do we?):smileylol:

Ah, but I think your examples are not comparable. CH criticises and lampoons Islam and its teachings, having regard for the violence, the anti-semitism, the misogyny, the homophobia which it inspires.

In short, they have a very real and genuine basis for their criticism . . . that and the fact that brutal violence has been threatened and acted out against them for such criticism.

The reason CH is critical is in response to   ideas which offer and act out violence and which stifle freedoms and equalities and tolerances.

Now, compare that with your other example where cartoons and criticisms were not aimed at the doers of bad things in society at all but were  aimed in order to create a scapegoat; someone to hate and to offload blame onto a people and a religion which hadn't actually done any threatening of its own.

I am aware that there is such a danger of demonising all Muslims, and we should be careful not to do that, and I don't do that.

I criticise the teachings or those parts of the teachings of Islam which provide inspiration and justification for intolerance, hatred and the commission of horrible violent crimes.

I'm sure you can see the difference.

I thought about reading this thread but saw who started it so that saved some time.

Some people have some understanding of what is offensive.

Coin

I would say most.

It's just that some seem to be offended far too easily and in a lot of people's minds, not justified

or even selectively offended. And I am not talking about people on here.

---

@nevynreally wrote:

Only if you still live in the 20th Century.

 

Is this a hacked account? Spelling atrocious. Context appalling.

 

debra9275, you're slipping.

---

Oh dear.

I don't dislike anyone. The fact you bring that up is interesting.

As to your "point" no they don't. It indicates that I'm tired of the high and mighty picking at others differing opinions when basically, your the same as your target. Someone with an opinion. Though in this case, for the most part, different to yours. Is it not allowed to have a different opinion? If so, it should say so when we log in, shouldn't it?

*typo

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Grammar police here.  Ipads don't alter grammar.

Spelling atrocious. Context appalling.

As to your "point" no they don't.

others differing opinions

your the same

Someone with an opinion.

different to yours

People in glass houses...................

---

@polksaladallie wrote:

---

---

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Grammar police here.  Ipads don't alter grammar.

 

Spelling atrocious. Context appalling.

 

As to your "point" no they don't.

 

others differing opinions

 

your you're the same

 

Someone with an opinion.

 

different to yours

 

People in glass houses...................

 

 

---

---

@evil_akuma_2002 wrote:

---

@polksaladallie wrote:

---

---

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Grammar police here.  Ipads don't alter grammar.

 

Spelling atrocious. Context appalling.

 

As to your "point" no they don't.

 

others differing opinions

 

your you're the same

 

Someone with an opinion.

 

different to yours

 

People in glass houses...................

 

 

---

 

---

You missed the other five.