For example we have laws against copyright infringement, we
have laws against character defamation, and we have laws against threatening one’s
life or calling to incite violence.
This means that although we have the right to use the catchphrase of a corporation they have the right to sue us blind.
Although we have the right to lay about one’s character in a damaging way they, too have the right to sue us blind, and we may threaten one’s life but we can be jailed for decades.
This means that although we have the right to use the catchphrase of a corporation they have the right to sue us blind.
Although we have the right to lay about one’s character in a damaging way they, too have the right to sue us blind, and we may threaten one’s life but we can be jailed for decades.
In this way we can see that there are still limitations on
"free" speech. I believe that proves that it is not free and should
not be entirely free.
All freedoms are limited by certain constraints.
We don't have absolute freedom of speech, but we do need the freedom to criticize religions...even to the point of ridicule, and breaking the dogmas in order to pave the way for Critical Thinking is important.
We don't have absolute freedom of speech, but we do need the freedom to criticize religions...even to the point of ridicule, and breaking the dogmas in order to pave the way for Critical Thinking is important.
“I seek shelter with God from being among the ignorant who
mock people.” Quran
49:11
O You who have chosen to be graced with belief! No people
shall make mockery of other people, for they may be better than they are. Nor
shall any women ridicule other women, for they may be better than they are. And
neither shall you defame nor be sarcastic to one another. And do not call each
other by (offensive) nicknames. After attaining faith, evil is (calling by)
names that are far from decency. Those who do not return to the right way are
the wrongdoers.
Mockery and ridicule is definitely a less dignifying manner
of criticism; human being in the public realm, should be as dignified as
possible.
But ridicule is not the same as criticism, which can be
constructive.
Ridicule is defined as an absurd misrepresentation of a person or thing, derision.
Ridicule is defined as an absurd misrepresentation of a person or thing, derision.
For example, Art is a very interesting subject.
Expression is at its core.
If you are meaning to express extreme hate and virulence with hopes of spreading deception is that art?
Just because someone uses food to mask the poison doesn't mean they are a chef, it means they are dangerous.
Expression is at its core.
If you are meaning to express extreme hate and virulence with hopes of spreading deception is that art?
Just because someone uses food to mask the poison doesn't mean they are a chef, it means they are dangerous.
Satire is a constructive form of ridicule. So the question
becomes, what element must be present to delineate art from hatred?
Is it simply that there must be heart present in the ridicule?
ps/smoh
8.56am
28/9/2012
Is it simply that there must be heart present in the ridicule?
ps/smoh
8.56am
28/9/2012
