Freedom to mock the Islamic Prophet

After a certain Lars almost was shot over this recently, my mother and I engaged in an epic debate on this subject. Her position was that the Muslims were being bullied by Lars, and that there comes a point at which the "hate speech" of mocking the prophet needs to end, legitimizing radical muslims and radicalizing moderate muslims. My view, on the other hand, is more that denigrating the concept of Islam, or any religion, in the form of propaganda is an entirely legitimate form of freedom of speech, because you can't assume the cartoonists Islamophobic views are wrong - much like mocking political figures (Jon Stewart), ISIS (Japanese Hostage) or Hitler would not generally be considered wrong in our society.

What do the good folks of edeb8 think?

admin: Hate speech is allowed but extremely stupid. What do these people gain out of signing their own death warrants?

Blackflag: As I said, it's nothing but provocative propaganda. I think they intend to demonstrate to people just how bad Islam is.

Do you believe there is a difference between what is allowed and what is right? Do you believe that if something cannot be proven wrong it is automatically right? Do you even believe in justified true beliefs?
If so, then do you believe it is "right" to promote an Islamophobic view which "could" be correct through controversial comedic mockery?

Blackflag: Yes, no and no.

It's about what they believe is correct. Much like democrats believe republicans are wrong, and thus they mock them. Likewise republicans believe democrats are wrong. The prophet Muhammad himself mocked atheists, and this is just an example of an atheist mocking the prophet.

admin: Well isn't that the problem? What does mocking gain to begin with? Isn't your mother right for declaring his form of speech non-legitimate, at least in the spirit of proving a point?

Blackflag: No, because it attempts to sway people to your point of view. Just because some mocks are more effective than others does not delegitimize the right to mock.

admin: If I have a "right" to mock, then do I also have the "right" to kill those whose who mock?

Blackflag: Nope.

To me anyway, there's a big difference between maximizing freedom (say, the right to speak) and extending that freedom to depriving the freedom and/or equality of others (such as the right to kill). Freedom is not an absolute like that.

admin: You declare some things as being "rights" and "legitimate" while declaring other things "illegal" and "illegitimate."
Your mother and you are both wrong from the opposing perspective, and if I've discovered anything, it is that there is no such thing as a "correct" perspective.

Freedom is not an absolute like that
So you are denying Muslims the freedom from scrutiny? It sounds like anyone could be correct pending on how they look at it.

Blackflag: That's just classical moral relativism though. I'm sure Rousseau would have a thing or two to say about that.

The way I see it, the basis of rights is the majority held belief in freedoms. Everyone wants to be free, including free from deprivation of those freedoms. Modern society is an attempt at the balancing of those desires, which isn't easy as it turns out. The problem I have with moral relativism is that it's generally used only to attack others (as in this case, murder). When a society's moral framework is based on murder, I don't see that society surviving long.

Blackflag: No, I'm giving everybody both the freedom to scrutinize and also freedom from unjust invasions into personal privacy. Scrutiny is a broad word. Should the US president have "freedom from scrutiny"? If so, why have elections? See, freedom from "scrutiny" can be interpreted so broadly as to destroy all freedoms.

admin: Unfortunately it isn't moral relativism, because one side can still be in the wrong. Just not in scenarios regarding liberty.

In this forum, we discussed two kinds of liberty.

Freedom of expression at the expense of others
and...
Freedom from scrutiny at the expense of others

I agree with what you said about freedom not being absolute. It means one mans liberty is always at the expense of another mans. That is why I think both you and your mother are wrong, because the correct answer comes in accepting both viewpoints are valid.

Wouldn't the most "legitimate" solution allow the artist to express his views without not bringing scrutiny upon Muslims? The middle ground seems justified here.

No, I'm giving everybody both the freedom to scrutinize and also freedom from unjust invasions into personal privacy. Scrutiny is a broad word. Should the US president have "freedom from scrutiny"? If so, why have elections? See, freedom from "scrutiny" can be interpreted so broadly as to destroy all freedoms.
So you DO acknowledge that freedom is give and take?

My main issue is your use of legitimate. Why do you have the power to call Lar's expression legitimate and not the Muslims "right" to be left alone illegitimate?

Blackflag: "one side can still be in the wrong. Just not in scenarios regarding liberty."
Let me clarify this. Suppose I believe in the liberty to live, and you believe in the liberty to kill. How are those moral ideas compatible? Because it sounds like "I'm a moral relativist, but only when it suits me in an argument" to me.

Putting aside the presumably accidental double negative in your penultimate sentence, it seems to me the artist's views are anti-muslim. For him to express his views without scrutinizing muslims would delegitimize his views and thus not be an accurate representation any more. There are theories of art which mandate certain forms of art should be used for certain forms of expression - for example, political expression should be done in a way that's as tasteful to the ruling authorities as possible. It's always struck me as a very conservative view, not rationally supported.

Blackflag: Yes. I just don't believe Lars crossed the line in depicting somebody as a dog. My Little Pony anthropomorphises ponies but I don't see a problem with that either.

Blackflag: 1) apostrophes. It's "Lars'" not "Lar's"
2) because the "right" to be left alone does not maximize freedoms, but rather is a restriction upon others. I try to limit restrictions as much as is possible while maximizing personal freedom for everybody equally. Again, it comes down to my prevailing liberal belief in freedom and equality.

Suppose I believe in the liberty to live, and you believe in the liberty to kill. How are those moral ideas compatible?
It seems you understand my point then. Liberty, like you said, is not an absolute. You must decide between the liberty to kill and the liberty to live.

Because it sounds like "I'm a moral relativist, but only when it suits me in an argument" to me.
In this one scenario you and your mom are both right.

Yes. I just don't believe Lars crossed the line in depicting somebody as a dog.
You still haven't answered my question though. Why do you get to determine where the line is?

because the "right" to be left alone does not maximize freedoms, but rather is a restriction upon others. I try to limit restrictions as much as is possible while maximizing personal freedom for everybody equally. Again, it comes down to my prevailing liberal belief in freedom and equality.
Again with the subjective "lines." Why is the liberty to criticize somehow more golden than the liberty to live uncriticized? Both suffer an equal loss of liberty. If you want to maximize liberty, you find the best middle ground.