Yes. You want to define them when and to what grade they can feel offended. Not very liberal if you ask me.
That's typical wingnut code to say : it should be used only as fit MY requirements.
Sorry but that's pure paranoia. In your defense of permissible, you managed to eliminate commendable completely.
And back to the underlying issue: a muslim was represented with a bomb on his head. Well, what's the religion of that last 500 suicide bombers in the world?
Well, what's the religion of the last 500 aircraft pilots who threw bombs at civilians? Jérôme, you crossed a certain line here, I wonder if you noticed. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
If Jerome thinks that all the anti-semitic cartoons in the Middle East are fair and square because "what is the religion of those israeli pilots and army forcing the occupation of palestinian land" or "what is the religion of the racial jew settlers after all" then I see that he is not discriminating according to his racial references, just advocating a point about free speech (which I would deeply disagree).
It would be consistent to think that those cartoons have some kind of "relation" with reality and all the jews should live with the fact that they can be put in the same basket. So Jerome wil be advocating for free speech for any attack on any race or religion just becasue one or some of its members behave wrongly. He will defend the right to attack any evangelist or christian just because of the KKK. And of course any atheist for the multiple crimes comitted in the name of atheism.
I am not sure if in this last case he would be crossing the line. He will merely advocate a "religious fervor" for free speech. It is a controversial statement in any case but not a racist one.
A pleasure I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude
And again, the point I will disagree with you to no end is the first. Who is to decide what is in the grey area and which things not? For me , we are clearly NOT in a grey area here. This is pure racism as fas as I can see (two clearly .. I must admit that a third one could be in the grey depending on how you see it).
I bet that most of the cartoon in the Middle East are not considered at all racist by a great majority.. more or less at the same rate that people in Europe do not consider these cartoons racist. So who is to decide what is blatant? A judge , you will answer.. a judge that in Europe is comletely biased against muslims and pro-catholic and pro-jews and in the Middle East is just the other way around.
Either you stablish complete free of speech or you just wirite down clear laws about restriction of racist comments and how to identify it. Sorry jerome you can not get it both ways: when it is blatant (as I see it) it is fine to be banned , when it is not (as I see it) we should defend it to no end.
And with this I think I have made clear my argument..No point in keep banging on it. I have made up my mind about you and I guess you have made your mind about me...
Talk to you again...
For instance, I am not offended by this (which is the cover of that album on the Holocaust which was banned by the Spanish supreme court):
(The title itself is great - an ironical comment on Godwin's law) In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes