Also, of especial relevance to the “concept” of “free speech” is a recent note in the UK Guardian (via Alternet)which is enlightening – and adds water to the already slippery slope: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/25/evangelical-christians-children-missionaries-schools

Liberty seems self-evident to you because you are a product of a particular liberal tradition. That does not make liberty some intrinsic, platonic thing. Perhaps it’s a good rule-of-thumb as it’s easy to define as you have laid out, but there may be different conceptions of liberty which are just, if not more, utilitarian.

As to your second point, about “some other actor” stopping you, this sort of runs contrary to the American conception of rights (I think you might be a Brit judging from your blog, not sure). Rights are only something that the federal government can infringe upon, not private actors. Hence, you have free speech in a public space. You do not have free speech in school, in the workplace, or on an internet message board, because the property rights of the actors on whose premises you speak upon generally speaking outweigh your own free speech rights.

I find your attitude kind of odd, because I’m not sure where such an inherent right would come from. Are you a theist?

Personally, while I do feel that there is a human feeling which could be called “oppression” which has commonalities across most (all?) cultures, and the goal of public policy should be to minimize the feeling, what causes the feeling of oppression to flare up varies dramatically depending upon how “rights” are defined within a society.

In many places, both in the past and to a lesser extent today, the traditional content of liberty by definition included the oppression of someone else. Slavery within the antebellum U.S. is a great example. Many more modern examples can be given, which would be more controversial. For example, the issue of children – do parents have the right to raise their children however they see fit (minus obvious physical abuse), or are their grounds for the state to intervene on behalf of the kids? In the U.S., we tend to restrict familial interference, but this is not the case elsewhere – for example, Germany bans home schooling.

Regardless, given I believe that while oppression is a universal, rights are not, the question seems to me to be how do we shape cultural norms to make sure liberty is not defined in such a way as to excessively trample the liberty of others. There’s more than one way to skin this cat – after all, despite having some minor free speech limitations, most of Europe has not declined into dictatorship, any more than the gross influence of money in American politics has allowed politicians with no political skill to buy their way into office (see, Mitt Romney).

Words, like actions, have a price. People need to understand there are consequences for their choice of words, regardless of the content – whether they are defaming others, yelling fire in a movie theatre, or ordering fries “with that”.

Uncensored speech is a liberty, and one that should be exercised with restraint. It is a privilege that America has taken for granted, and it’s value and merit have suffered for that reason.

Sure they do. Specifically, they build from the neurons in your head, the way they wire up with each other, and the resulting pattern of stimuli that excite/inhibit the release of various neuromodulators.

There are certainly some large-scale common trends, implanted by evolution. Murder is usually wrong – except when it isn’t. Same thing for stealing, assault, etc. It’s good to respect others, especially elders, up to a point – but which point?

While you can identify some similarities in the general thrust of values, due to common raw instincts, it’s all about how you prioritize these raw instincts against each other. The flexibility of human cultures (resulting from the extreme plasticity of human brains) means that the same basic instincts can result in a myriad of very different actual (socially constructed) value systems.

This American Muslim agrees with you completely. My attitude is this: if denigrating the Prophet is a sin, then surely God will judge those denigrators. Why should any Muslim be concerned that someone is denigrating the Prophet, since they will be judged according to God’s will.

The United States is a special country in the history of the world. Our Constitutionally mandated respect for freedom of speech is unobserved by most other nations. Only in the US do we allow so-called “hate speech,” and thank God for that. We aren’t so obsessed with inoffense and social cohesion as the nations of Europe, and we are stronger for it. A nation of conformity is stagnant and decrepit. No wonder the countries of western Europe, despite their illustrious past, will soon become bankrupt failing states.

I think the anger and rage comes more from the fact that most Muslims live under authoritarian governments, and that, for the most part, if dissent were expressed in this riotous way, the rioters would be shot. If, however, they express their anger (at being unemployed, unmarried, etc.) against the US or the West, there is no real problem for the governments. Essentially, using a sort of Islamic nationalism, the governments of the Middle East can deflect attention elsewhere by allowing these protests to take place.

I don’t understand how ‘true for them’ makes it real. Do not values build up from genuine things? If I shoot someone they will be dead, it won’t matter which country we’re in.

4. ‘Offended’ isn’t the same thing as mass murder. ‘Offended’ is trivial.

this is because of your values. muslims take offense against their religion in the same manner as mass murder. i personally think that’s pretty barbaric, but that’s just how it is. similarly, i dated an evangelical christian for a few weeks in high school who thought that if god sanctioned mass murder, well, it was good because god sanctioned it (she was not a sophisticate, so please don’t assume i’m impugning all evangelicals). i thought it was perverse, but it made sense in her own system of belief.

It’s as if to say you have a right to be wrong and all truth is subjective.