Free Speech

Hate speech is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation".

Provoke; cause of resentment or irritation. Provocation is defined as something that gets someone to act, especially out of irritation. A mosquito's buzzing prompting someone to swat it is an example of provocation. The act of provoking, inciting or annoying someone into doing something.

In law, provocation is when a person is considered to have committed a criminal act partly because of a preceding set of events that might cause a reasonable person to lose self control. This makes them less morally culpable than if the act was premeditated (pre-planned) and done out of pure malice (malice aforethought).

No , not in a civilized society . The way west is approaching this is On the one hand, nothing is sacred. On the other, everything atheist , is protected like it is sacred.

Practically there will always be many groups of people who will have views acceptable and appreciated by one and offensive to many others , it is also fact that these groups know what other believe . We can say things that might offend but it should never be intent to Offend because offence results in violence or chaos but not a fruitful discussion.

We as humans should use our WISDOM to understand what we are speaking and who are the audience and speak within boundaries of respect. for example

• All religious belief says it is right, so it's a moral responsibility to save flow human from wrong , but to do so a Muslim preacher should not go to Vatican or Church interrupt a gathering and start preaching ISLAM and similarly Christian priest is not expected to go to Mecca and start preaching worshipers , they can book a place invite people who are interested and discuss the subject with them

• Words like hate speech , provocation exists in vocabulary and law for a reason . Its senseless to say you have right to offend to one and you have right to response to provocation .. there is a saying an eye for and eye will leave the whole world blind .

I was taught this in engineering , when we were learning Engines , our professor explained what drives a car , jet engine is an explosion .

The word explosion sounds destructive but explosion in itself is not bad, if it happens in a controlled environment , when your car is running inside the piston or compression chamber fuel is injected, compressed ignited with spark that creates the explosion we harness that energy to to move the vehicle . we make use of that energy . If this explosion happens in middle of market with box of splinters , shrapnels in a market place, hundreds or even thousands may die .

Explosion is the same , with the difference that one happened in a controlled environment with INTENT to benefit
and in market it happened in an uncontrolled environment with INTENT to HURT

So a controlled environment for Free Speech is

• drivers of discussion should be Intellectuals , scholars , law-makers who are qualified to speak on the subject

• Discussion happens in boundaries of rules and debate should be recorded unedited.

• Participants in audience have willingly agreed to rules of discussion and content

• Any valid point from drivers or participants should be noted and addressed

• Debate/Discussion should be moderated

• The discussion should published freely and be available to anyone who wants to learn other opinions

Governments : are bodies that is supposed to represent majority public opinion so yes we should and be actively criticising government . BUT Criticizing and Slander , Abusing, Mockey, Provocation are not synonymous. if we need to get a fruitful result it should be a fact based reasoning .

Religion :

Scenario 1:

Religion is different from Administration , as of today Church and state is separate, most country while they have major faith but the laws are run on constitution . So in this scenario , if you don't like a religion or its practice ,simply don't practice there is no reason to slander in public . if these subjects need to be discussed these can be done in specialized groups with qualified and interested people as explained below.

Scenario 2 :

If religious is States law example in an ISLAMIC Country ( firstly there is no ISLAMIC Country existing but lets take specific example )

General Muslim majority Country : No muslim

Yes , that is right . but this argument is like saying there are so many people with so many weird allergies why bother ?

Do we take that approach in Medicine or Hotel Industry ?

NO, because purpose of medicine is to save lives , we go into every detail research cause , make process beyond medical professionals and enforce that to outlets selling food that could cause , run checks to see they are complying

1. We do not say mean things when we are stopped by police

2. We do not say disrespectful things in court

3. If we are given a Bag of Gold coins and asked to pass through road of thieves and dacoits would we would not carry that in a transparent bag displaying as we walk instead we Hide from POSSIBLE threats.

Its common sense in first 2 points it is wrong to say say mean things , inpoint 3 even if we are right and dacoit is wrong we still dont display or announce we have gold because its in our BEST interest

Yes they can do it and are doing it . If a COP starts stealing that does not make Stealing right

LAW and Courts are tools to achieve justice but does not guarantee justice , Judge is not infallible , a Politician is most popular for being corrupt and happen to be lawmakers.

So they can give minor ,no punishment or even reward for a grave Offence that created bloodshed and violence , example :

The French teacher who was given authority over students entrusted to teach students and not slander or insult students religious beliefs and figures . he not created chaos internationally but also provoked entire Muslim nation , consequence of which French scavengers are using it for their political agenda. legal Authorities are Abusing their position and showing double standards by intentionally ignoring basics of Hate Speech. NO one was forcing that teacher to accept ISLAM , if he did not like religion he was already practicing that by not following ISLAM there was no reason to provoke entire Muslim nation just because he did not like some religion.

Yes , we should and we do . for example

• people do bad things at shrines of Sufis, that should be criticized and stopped . and people should also be educated on the subject .

• If a Muslim commits a sin, should be punished not matter what position he holds

• Muslims collectively create unhygienic neighbourhood this should be criticized .

• When priests abuse children in churches , that should be criticized and priests should be punished and checks should be put in place to stop that

• when someone abuses Christianity based on bad actions of Priests or establishment that covers for such heinous crimes it's a Slander on religion , Criticism should be in right forum and in right context , Religion and practice of prophet Isa ( jesus) peace be upon him has nothing to do with these acts, if all priests go evil even then the message of Isa ( Jesus ) peace be upon him is the same and pure.

• There are sects in every religion , there are fundamental differences that cannot be reconciled hence it becomes a Sect , we need to understand this. One needs to approach this with the same way as mentioned in point above regarding exercise limit on freedom of speech,,investigate and question each sect within boundaries of respect listen to answers decide the stand that's most convincing .

The most important element in this question is that these differences in religions, or any other conflicts is done by external hidden elements e.g through politicians , priests or famous people. So at individual level we should know these differences will exist and will be fueled by sponsored events that will create chaos based on these sensitive subjects . We should be very careful in understanding and dealing with such issues , dont be lazy and paint everything with single brush . painful thing like divorce, domestic violence do happen but that does not mean we conclude marriage is bad thing .