"If he insults your mother, he should expect a punch." Is the Pope right?

[ConstantOgler]

I don't think Pope has many fans here, but we have plenty of punchers ready for the right situation.
How about you?

[scoundrel]

Originally Posted by ConstantOgler

I don't think Pope has many fans here, but we have plenty of punchers ready for the right situation.
How about you?

His Holiness is always right, it goes with the job. I am certainly not going to start saying bad things about the Pope's mother. I hear he has quite a useful right hook.

His point is not empty. Freedom of speech is not freedom to not be answerable for the things you say. But there is a natural limit to how far anyone can legitimately be held to account for saying unpopular things. Pope Francis might reasonably punch me for insulting his mother (depending on what exactly I said); but he cannot justify shooting me for it, and he has not argued that he can or that others can.

[MrInBetween]

I can't help warming to someone in public life who, like John Prescott, eschews the usual platitudes for a good, honest, punch in the mush. But he goes on to say 'You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others. There is a limit.' Well, there is a limit to freedom of expression, obviously, but that isn't where I would draw it. I think you can do those things. So, given the full context of his remark, and without implying that he is any way attempting to justify the violent attacks of last week, I would say that he is wrong.

[ConstantOgler]

Originally Posted by scoundrel

His point is not empty. Freedom of speech is not freedom to not be answerable for the things you say. But there is a natural limit to how far anyone can legitimately be held to account for saying unpopular things. Pope Francis might reasonably punch me for insulting his mother (depending on what exactly I said); but he cannot justify shooting me for it, and he has not argued that he can or that others can.

Are you saying if they had only punched the insulters, not murdered them, there should be no prosecution for assault? The insults are not outlawed, but they are bad. Insulters asked for it, assaulters excused? I don't think you are but maybe . . . . In the current heat, who needs an ambiguous comment?

A key to free speech is the great gulf separating speech from action. "Sticks and stones may break my bones but names, . . .etc." is the Law. No insulting words can be a defense for assault.

There is another chicanery here. He does not say "If someone insults you." It would be too obvious a punch is over-reaction, & you have legal responsibility for your act. So he tricks in chivalry and filial respect. ("You don't respect religion? How about your Mom?") A punch is OK cos it's not about you. Something sacred. I call this sleight-of-hand, by a pro, but as you say, it goes with the job.

[jumbo prawns]

The second that you say that free speech is conditional or worse that it should/could result in violence, of any form, then it isn't really free speech anymore is it?

The pope is basically saying that they guy with the biggest fists gets free speech, everyone else needs to duck.

[MrInBetween]

Originally Posted by ConstantOgler

A key to free speech is the great gulf separating speech from action. "Sticks and stones may break my bones but names, . . .etc." is the Law. No insulting words can be a defense for assault.

That's just what they can be, at least under English law. If the Pope's punch resulted in a death (can happen, my ex once lived next door to a man who'd 'accidentally' killed someone with a single punch, 'nother story) then he could use the defence of provocation in the hope of being convicted of manslaughter rather than murder. It would have to be proved that the insulting remark was such as to have caused 'a reasonable person' to have lost control at that point. It wouldn't be an absolute defence because he would still be guilty of manslaughter. And it wouldn't apply in the case of the Charlie Hebdo murders because the actions can't be premeditated, or in the hypothetical Papal case if the other person didn't die - although he'd probably claim diplomatic immunity or something anyway.

Don't think that by saying this I'm disagreeing with your general point about the difference between speech and action. Perhaps the Pope's words would be easier to take if he added, 'Of course, I might end up being charged with assault, but that's a chance I'd be willing to take.'

[brk549]

I'm a believer,not a very good one but I believe.I just can't buy into the story that we all came from two specks of dust that happened to bump into each other.No one can explain where the first two specks of dust came from.I don't think the Pope thought this out.Even though you should punch someone for bad things said about your mother,a lot of people might be equally offended if you tell them they are going to hell if they don't live like you.Being offended can't be the only excuse for anything.I should believe in turning the other cheek but I wouldn't be a good one to try it on.

[Motorboater]

Originally Posted by jumbo prawns

The second that you say that free speech is conditional or worse that it should/could result in violence, of any form, then it isn't really free speech anymore is it?

The pope is basically saying that they guy with the biggest fists gets free speech, everyone else needs to duck.

The problems is. The manner in which some people are made up, means that some people speak from a context of confrontation/violence. It's how you can get physically strong person who when triggered, is capable of causing a lot of damage through violent acts. But when you speak to them, they're clear, softly spoken and can be outgoing.

The on the other hand, you have a scrawny, self-entitled arsehole, who is not capable of any violent damage, but speaks in a aggressive, violent manner.

[tygrkhat40]

The Pope says we shouldn't insult other religions, yet the Catholic Church has been doing just that for thousands of years. Not to mention the fact that other religions do the same to Catholicism.

[brk549]

Seems to be that the people that think they have the most to prove will always be the loudest mouthed.In a lot of cases a big mouth with not enough ass to back it up.