Having written about the HR committee's blasphemy move before, I'm shocked, and please, at their reversal.

Also, just today I wrote of a sudden realization I had: "One of the easiest indicators of a repressive regime is whether they criminalize 'insult.'"

Here's the post for anyone interested. http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/report_on_mideast_pro-gov_hackers_this_week_in_onl.php

British judges please take note!

Why do you see the speck in your neighbor's eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye?

and still the americans support a NEW MUSLIM STATE in Europe = Kosovo

The West in general and US in particular have turned free speech and dissent into a cult as far as other countries, cultures or belief systems are concerned. But they have their own holy cows which are ouside the purview of free speech, e.g. holocast. Also any criticism of Israel and its policies is quickly labled as anti-semitic, as though Arabs are not semetic and their criticism is not anti-semitic.
Free speech and dissent are generally applicable to political,social and scientific issues in which case one can freely express one's opinion on any issue or disagree with any other opinion. But it cannot have unbridled application in the case of faith or belief systems. In this case free speech, tolerence and dissent would have to be circumscribed by the right to hold any belief yourself, disagree with others' beliefs and allow the same freedom to others. It cannot mean the right of abusing or ridiculing other faiths and beliefs and their sacred persons or symbols. That should fall in the category of hate speech, not free speech. And for obvious reasons hate speech is not approved by any civilised society. Of course civilised discourse, discussion and difference of opinion on religious beliefs or practices has always been and should always be permissible. But extending the concept of free speech to unbridled comment on religion would always arouse anger and would be dangerous.
As regards extremism and intolerence, this is a seperate phenomenon, not linked to blasphemy or protection laws. Extremists would be extremists irrespective of the existence of any laws; and they need to be tackled. And, by the way, those advocating uncontrolled speech in the case of religion are no less extremists-though of another kind.

He tried to prevent Pres. Ahmadinjad of Iran from speaking to a group at Columbia that had invited him. When that failed, he insulted Ahmadinejad when introducing him. We may not like this erstwhile dictator (albeit one who has been deliberately misquoted, especially on his alleged desire to obliterate Israel), but those who invited him to speak were aware of all his flaws and still wanted to hear him.

Unfortunately, freedom of speech includes hypocrisy.

Pakistan, by all means, is a wretched mess; a true hell hole where the concepts of religion and faith have been exploited to greatest possible extent by all and sundry.

Laws, one learnt in the law school at least, exist to protect and benefit citizens. In Pakistan, laws generally and specially those associated with blasphemy are meant to kill people!

In a sad and dreadful environment, such as Pakistan, minorities and those with liberal views and ideals have no future. Death and destruction stare in the faces of those who dare to speak out. Mr. Taseer is one genuine example of someone who got screwed only because the mullahs found him too hard to handle.

Equality, fairplay and justice are alien concepts in dungeons like Pakistan. God save us from the day when the mullahs takeover all possible facets of life.

All may not be lost, however. If the people of Pakistan reject the nefarious ways of the Wahabi fundos, there can be a lot of improvement in the general landscape of the society. However, the problem is that the effective mass of people, it appears, leans toward religion when it comes to critical decision-making junctures.

It is safe to assume that the texture and tenor of the Pakistani society and culture has undergone a change for the worst over the past 2 or 3 decades. There is lack of trust amongst the people, an absence of support system, the inability of the state system to provide adequate support to the teeming millions when it comes to health, education, human rights. In these circumstances, people have turned to the mullahs for superficial assistance from the 'leaders of the faith'

Long story short, I would be happy if ever the Pakistani government bans its citizens from growing and maintaining beards! I'll be even happier, however, if stronger guarantees of life, liberty and freedom and protection from religious persecution are provided to the general population.

it cannot have unbridled application in the case of faith or belief systems. In this case free speech, tolerence and dissent would have to be circumscribed by the right to sázkové kanceláre hold any belief yourself, disagree with others' beliefs and allow the same freedom to others. It cannot mean the right of abusing or ridiculing other faiths and beliefs and their sacred persons or symbols. That should fall in the category of hate speech, not free speech. And for obvious reasons hate speech is not approved by any civilised society. Of course civilised discourse, discussion and difference of opinion sázkové kanceláre on religious beliefs or practices has always been and should always be permissible. But extending the concept of free speech to unbridled comment on religion would always arouse anger and would be dangerous.

Countries that fail to safeguard free speech and press freedom are likely to be visited first by dictatorship, and then by threats to the governing regime. Throwing a shoe at a visiting head-of-state is more than just an insult. It's attempted assault. I guess you could argue that it is a form of speech, but certainly not one that deserves legal protection. medical billing The West in general and US in particular have turned free speech and dissent into a cult as far as other countries, cultures or belief systems are concerned. But they have their own holy cows which are ouside the purview of free speech, e.g. holocast. Also any criticism of Israel and its policies is quickly labled as anti-semitic, as though Arabs are not semetic and their criticism is not anti-sem.