Freedom of Speech is More Important Than Islamic Law

Transcript: http://indignantatheist.blogspot.com/2010/09/freedom-of-speech-is-more-import...

No religion/religious principal is more important than freedom. See, nobody has the right to not be offended, nobody has the right to silence another, but we do have the right to spit cruel, even merciless ridicule at one another. That's what makes freedom greater than religion, see, freedom is the only reason you can be religious and not be part of the majority and it's the only principle that's fair.

You want to be able to talk about God? You want to spew your idiotic faith? Then that means I have the right to call you out, to mock your god, your religious leaders, and your superstitious nonsense in any way I see fit. I have the right to challenge your self-righteous and baseless authority, your subjective faith, and your contemptuous laws.

Don't forget to subscribe and like me on Facebook!

http://www.facebook.com/pages/IndignantAtheist/116581588371471

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• freedom of speech
• atheist
• atheist perspective
• religion
• ideology
• Islam
• Mohammed controversy
• South Park
• comedy

[rockos414]

You're wrong about freedom of speech. It does contain an asterisk. You can't yell Fire in a crowded theater. You can't say anything that would provoke immediate danger and panic. What that exactly is, is up to the supreme court.

If Muslims want to use that asterisk, they can. It's a cheap ploy to trump freedom of expression, but it's perfectly constitutional.

[indignantatheist]

@rockos414 Show me the asterisk. It's not there. What the First Amendment DOES say is "shall make no law" which is pretty plain and simple if you ask me, sir. Is it dangerous to yell "Fire" in a crowed theater? Yes. Is it unlawful? Yes, by today's law, but today's law is unconstitutional.

[rockos414]

@indignantatheist Forsyth Bethel v. Fraser, a Supreme Court precedent. A case that protected children against "sexual" speech. Of course, there's no actual asterisk dumbass! An asterisk would be equivalent to a Supreme Court precedent because it refines/interprets the amendment. There are forms of speech that are prohibited and protected under law.

There ya go, plain and simple.

[indignantatheist]

@rockos414 You thought you could win by referencing Bethel v. Fraser? Come on! They merely upheld a suspension of a guy who gave a dirty speech at a school. There is nothing unconstitutional about being suspended from school. You SHOULD be suspended for that kind of thing. You SHOULD be expelled from school if you make a bomb threat. That's not limiting freedom of speech and that precedent is not even part of this conversation!

[EmilioCasavegas]

@rockos414 If the laws in our country don't follow secular ethics, then they are inherently unconstitutional. The first amendment to the Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting any establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Any limitations to freedom of speech are there to protect other rights.

[bell191991]

great point, well made. nice one

[rockos414]

@indignantatheist The point of BvF*, Does a student's freedom of speech override the school district's standards? Do you want more Supreme Court precedents where freedom of speech was challenged? There's plenty of them.

You've lost sight of the premise. We have the first amendment, but we also have precedents that limit/control/interpret freedom of speech. An asterisk to an amendment, if you will. Do you not understand how a precedent works? It's not a hard concept to grasp.

[sfeeges]

Respekt

[ruumpleteaser]

You are fucking awesome