Russ Abbott quoted the New Yorker: > In other words, you can ridicule the prophet, but you cannot incite > hatred toward his followers. To take two more examples, the actress > Brigitte Bardot was convicted and fined for having written, in 2006, > about France’s Muslims, “We are tired of being led around by the nose > by this population that is destroying our country.” Meanwhile, the > writer Michel Houellebecq (whose new novel was featured in the issue > of Charlie Hebdo that came out just before the attack) was brought up > on charges, but acquitted, for having said in an interview that Islam > “is the stupidest religion.” Bardot was clearly directing hostility > toward Muslim people, and was thus found guilty, while Houellebecq was > criticizing their religion, which is blasphemous, but not a crime, in > France. >
This makes me think of historian Ian Morris... That war is good because it puts violence in the hands of governments, rather than in individuals. In doing so, it greatly reduces it as rules and technology, etc. need to be created for its use. (Of course, governments do not necessarily do this because it is a good thing, but just because they need to keep power.) And the legal distinction above seems like it can only be about maintaining order. Free speech is all fine and good in principle, but don't think for a second it means any thing in practice in particular cases. Another pacification tactic.. Get it out of your system and then put it away. Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
