Excellent thread topic. In the modern world either every thing is okay, or nothing is okay. That is my opinion. But I might be an idealist.
Pragmatic questions to ask however:
If you truly say something disgusting though, I mean against all good sense and morality, shouldn't you be punished in some way?
For example recently a Connecticut beer brand had Gandhi's image on their cans - a man who sacrificed immensely all his life, was against alcohol personally and in the society because it had ruined many families in a poor country. This even in my opinion is in bad, terrible taste. Should they be allowed to do this - certainly. Should they have actually done it - no. Now that they have, how does one punish them? Well, you let the market decide. People can petition, protest, and boycott their product. Sounds fine to me.
However, "let the market work" is not always a fair option. This is because when a motion is made, there are usually people supporting a certain point of view that have more of the power, support, and resources. In that case, they can not influence the long term outcomes using classical freedom of protest/freedom of speech laws.
It's interesting to think about this. If a kid is being bullied in school, getting punched by a big tough guy, he has the option of hitting back. In reality, is this going to change anything though? Should a teacher intervene?
Sometimes you see the opposite. A "tyranny of the minority" situation. Like Muslims in India. Or Israel anywhere in the west to a lesser extent.
Sometimes this allowed free speech leads to actual deaths. Muslims are allowed free speech in India for example. But many of them have been spouting extreme anti Hindu sentiment, to the point of causing real acts of terrorism. At what point is that okay? At what point is that punishable, if at all? Is it punishable only after a real terrorist plot has been devised?
Pragmatic questions to ask however:
If you truly say something disgusting though, I mean against all good sense and morality, shouldn't you be punished in some way?
For example recently a Connecticut beer brand had Gandhi's image on their cans - a man who sacrificed immensely all his life, was against alcohol personally and in the society because it had ruined many families in a poor country. This even in my opinion is in bad, terrible taste. Should they be allowed to do this - certainly. Should they have actually done it - no. Now that they have, how does one punish them? Well, you let the market decide. People can petition, protest, and boycott their product. Sounds fine to me.
However, "let the market work" is not always a fair option. This is because when a motion is made, there are usually people supporting a certain point of view that have more of the power, support, and resources. In that case, they can not influence the long term outcomes using classical freedom of protest/freedom of speech laws.
It's interesting to think about this. If a kid is being bullied in school, getting punched by a big tough guy, he has the option of hitting back. In reality, is this going to change anything though? Should a teacher intervene?
Sometimes you see the opposite. A "tyranny of the minority" situation. Like Muslims in India. Or Israel anywhere in the west to a lesser extent.
Sometimes this allowed free speech leads to actual deaths. Muslims are allowed free speech in India for example. But many of them have been spouting extreme anti Hindu sentiment, to the point of causing real acts of terrorism. At what point is that okay? At what point is that punishable, if at all? Is it punishable only after a real terrorist plot has been devised?
You don't get there till you get there