And why must we accept the other at all costs, no matter what, even if it is at the cost of our own most vital qualities? why should we have no rights to claim certain preconditions by the other must be met in order to make him acceptable for us? Why shall we give up the right of self-defense in the widest meaning, just for this unlimited acceptance and unlimiuted tolerance? In the end, both is possible only by finally rejecting our own identity, our own rights, our own self-acceptance.
No, we must not accept the other at all cost. Lesson learned from WWII.
Before I alarmed Neal over the now locked thread, I had posted there in reply to Mapuc who saw the issue touching the basic understanding of democracy, and that this is the reason why everyone should be free to say whatever he wants. I copy over my reply from there, slighty edited (to get rid of the typos
):
Everything has limits. Making critical, even controversial statements is one thing. Blind racism, for example, or Nazistic propaganda, and speeches arguing in favour of the destruction of the right of free speech, extreme stuff like this - this is a very different thing, and it shall not be covered by the right of "free speech". The law also does not give you the right of free action - and then robbing other people without legal consequences, for example. Everything has limits as long as you are not alone in the world.
This sick stranger wanted to provoke, and he succeeded with all of you. Proper action would have been to not post a singly reply, hint the mods and see the thing locked or deleted and the person banned. Some things simply are not to be tolerated, Meinungsfreiheit hin, Meinungsfreiheit her. If I would easy-minded demand the nuking of Mekka - and then would make fun of it, i would get trouble with Tak immediately, I'm sure. See what I mean?
Admitted, the borderline is fluid, and sometimes hard to define. Judgement errors are possible. And still - in principle we must defend such a borderline between what is acceptable, and what not. Else we damage ourselves, and allow our own rights and liberties and values being turned against us, in order to destroy us.
If that sick stranger yesterday would have posted according "jokes" not with regard to 9/11, but the Nazis, and do it in Germany, by German valid laws he would be sued and sentenced for it. so, controversial, critical statements: yes, and they shall not be given up without counter-argument or just for simple excuses of somebody feeling offended. Beeing offended can easily become a method, a systematic routine, to silence criticism. But things like in that locked thread: well, every humour has limits, every arguing, and every liberty.
That is neither a violation of free speech, nor a damge for demcoracy. It is needed to protect both democracy and free speech.