Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by WiseWeasel 5869 days ago
"but that does not give me the right to ridicule things that others hold dear."

No, that would be the US Constitution's first amendment. Conversely, you do not have a right to not have the beliefs you hold dear ridiculed. There is no legal protection against having one's beliefs ridiculed. That's because it's not a big deal. Get over it.
2 comments
saikat 5869 days ago
To be fair, there is also no legal protection for "protecting free speech" in a general sense. The first amendment only prevents the GOVERNMENT from limiting your free speech. Companies limit free speech all the time (think NDA), and they are often within their rights. Maybe this is a technicality, but many on this thread would do well to know it.
link
etravers 5869 days ago
First, there is nothing to get over. I am not emotionally involved. Second, just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean you should do it. It's not about laws and amendments. It is about people's feelings. I have the right to draw Jesus, Mohammed and Moses having sex. That doesn't make it any less offensive to a great many people. So should I do it just because I can and want to see what kind of reaction I get?

So your cartoon was censored. Maybe you are the one who needs to get over it.

link
WiseWeasel 5869 days ago
I'm just saying that expression shouldn't be limited in any way. Then, you can go on debating morality with everyone else for as long as you want.

As for the cartoon, it was likely a mistake to give in to the threats, as it simply validates them and invites more.

link
etravers 5869 days ago
I agree 100%. Expression should not be limited. The issue I have with this is that the participants aren't expressing themselves. They're expressing someone else, "huh-huh... that's funny. I'm going to do that too."

And just to put it out there; I have no problem with you (I don't know you) and I am not trying to argue directly with you. Your's was just the reply link I clicked.

link