Should This Man Have Been Allowed To Speak?

[ChristineES]

Freedom of speech is a right, even if a person's speech is full of hatred. If we take away one person's right to speech then they could start silencing other people for different reasons. It seems apathetic, but there is no easy solution.

 

[TheScholar]

I don't believe in violence. I am a contentious objector, and a near pacifist. Honor killings are shameful, they are barbaric, and those that carry them out should be brought to justice.

However everyone should have the ability to speak. The Freedom of Speech should not be taken away, because people don't like what they have to say. It is not mainstream speech that needs to be protected, but fringe speech.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

I agree everyone should have the right to say what they wish.

That does not mean every idea should be given a public forum to do so.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

But, are advocating and inciting the same?
I agree, speech used to incite violence, or fire up a group of people to steer them towards a criminal act should be banned, but is simply explaining why you advocate a criminal action enough to be considered incitement?

Personally, and this may be horrible of me in some of your eyes.. But I don't care much if, say, gangbangers kill off each other, as long as there are no innocents in the crossfire..
..If I were to write a speech about how much I condone gangsters shooting each other, and cleaning up the streets by gang wars, am I inciting violence, and should that speech be suppressed, as it is about a non-legal termination of lives?

 

[McBell]

'Honour killings' speech prompts boycott of Festival of Dangerous Ideas



I don't think this man should be allowed to speak. Murder is a crime. Murdering a woman because she has "disgraced" her family is ******* revolting.

There is no excusing these actions.

What do you think?

I think you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Those against honor killings will remain against honor killers and those for honor killings will remain for honor killings regardless of what he has to say.

 

[McBell]

By giving him a platform to speak this hatred and bigotry you are indirectly lending legitimacy to the idea.

So any discussion on the topic of honor killings is "lending legitimacy" to honor killings?

Do you perhaps use this same "logic" in all debates?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

There are very few countries where free speech is anywhere near absolute.
incitement to murder is a crime in most countries, and this includes "honour" killing.
which is so misnamed as to be impossible to describe adequately.

Should he be allowed to Speak?... certainly... but he should be publically arrested as soon as he incites "honour" Killing.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

There are very few countries where free speech is anywhere near absolute.
incitement to murder is a crime in most countries, and this includes "honour" killing.
which is so misnamed as to be impossible to describe adequately.

Should he be allowed to Speak?... certainly... but he should be publically arrested as soon as he incites "honour" Killing.

Is there any certainty that he will actually incite honor killing?
Can you attempt to advocate, or justify something without telling others they should do it?
Or are you saying he should be arrested "if" he incites honor killing?

 

[The Neo Nerd]

So any discussion on the topic of honor killings is "lending legitimacy" to honor killings?

No any discussion justifying it is

Do you perhaps use this same "logic" in all debates?

No, he isn't debating someone, so it's different.

 

[4consideration]

No any discussion justifying it is

No, he isn't debating someone, so it's different.

Do you think that applies to all topics for such an event?

The whole event is called the Festival of Dangerous Ideas, so that would imply for me that all topics being discussed are what might be considered dangerous ideas -- which leads to the potential position that the discussion of all dangerous ideas (unless those discussions are simply opposition to ideas) could be seen as giving legitimacy to those ideas and perhaps should not be allowed. Do you think the whole event should be disallowed?

 

[ametist]

There is freedom of speech and thought. If we try to erase all disturbing ideas to us we should burn many books and kill many people. And many people dont really mean them when they speak or write or draw so.. They are simply artists or movie makers or something.. who wants to test your reactions or just hatred.

 

[Mycroft]

It is depressing to have to point out, yet again, that there is a distinction between having the legal right to say something & having the moral right not to be held accountable for what you say. Being asked to apologise for saying something unconscionable is not the same as being stripped of the legal right to say it. It’s really not very complicated. People cry “free speech” in such contexts, they are demanding the right to speak any bilge they wish without apology or fear of comeback. They are demanding not legal rights but an end to debate about and criticism of what you say. When did bigotry get so needy?

 

[McBell]

No any discussion justifying it is

Why are you justifying honor killings?

 

[beenie]

Let the guy speak and make an idiot of himself trying to give any legitimate reason for killing girls and women for so-called "honor".

My guess is that the title is sensational to begin with, since "Man Speaks Against Honor Killings" doesn't draw the crowd or attention. If I'm wrong, and the guy really is trying to condone honor killings, then let him bury himself. Either way, he should be able to speak.

 

[Bunyip]

I would let him speak. Nutjobs with evil ideas are best given the opportunity to expose themsepves for the fools they are.

Censoring the KKK, the holocaust deniers and this witless coward only empowers them.

Let him speak, let him reveal to the world what an utter moron he is.

 

[steeltoes]

Of course he should speak. Why adopt the Nazi tenet of silencing those we disagree with?

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Of course he should speak. Why adopt the Nazi tenet of silencing those we disagree with?

This isn't about free speech.

He can get up on his little soap box and spout all the rubbish he likes.

He can do it in his mosque, he can do it in his home, he can do it on the street.

But refusing to allow him to speak in an organised forum is not anti-free speech. The organisers have every right to reject him and the topic. It is their party and they get to make the decisions.

His talk has of course been cancelled. He is now claiming islamophobia, which is ridiculous. He has been rejected because of the nature of his talk, not because of his religion. No words can describe my contempt for his saying that.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Is there any certainty that he will actually incite honor killing?
Can you attempt to advocate, or justify something without telling others they should do it?
Or are you saying he should be arrested "if" he incites honor killing?

incitement to commit a crime does not mean someone actually has to do it.
It is enough that your words are an encouragement for some one to do it.

 

[Apex]

'Honour killings' speech prompts boycott of Festival of Dangerous Ideas



I don't think this man should be allowed to speak. Murder is a crime. Murdering a woman because she has "disgraced" her family is ******* revolting.

There is no excusing these actions.

What do you think?

I may have to go find it, but I read an article on this and it said he was not actually going to justify honor killings. It was just a provocative title. But it reminds me of an article on CNN I read recently:

Michael Bloomberg: Universities becoming bastions of intolerance - CNN.com

Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, delivering Thursday's commencement speech at Harvard University, criticized what he described as a disturbing trend of liberals silencing voices "deemed politically objectionable."

"This spring, it has been disturbing to see a number of college commencement speakers withdraw -- or have their invitations rescinded -- after protests from students and -- to me, shockingly -- from senior faculty and administrators who should know better," Bloomberg said.

.
.
.

He added, "If you want the freedom to worship as you wish, to speak as you wish, and to marry whom you wish, you must tolerate my freedom to do so -- or not do so -- too. What I do may offend you. You may find my actions immoral or unjust. But attempting to restrict my freedoms in ways that you would not restrict your own leads only to injustice."

 

[Nakosis]

Probably better to let everyone place their morality on the table so we all know who we are dealing with than keep their morals hidden and allow people to act covertly.

Should include honor killing in their marriage vows so no surprises.

"I vow to love, honor and kill you if you cheat on our marriage".

At least women might reconsider the morality of the marriage.