The Three Rs of “Free Speech” (in a civil society)

3 RS


The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.


I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgement for every empty word they have spoken. (Matt 12)




6 thoughts on “The Three Rs of “Free Speech” (in a civil society)

  1. While, as I’ve said in earlier threads, I don’t like the Hebdo brand of cartoons, I disagree with where you seem to be going on this. You’ve said in the past that God gives us freedoms that are reflected in liberal government (liberal being western or democratic or the like), even to the extent of sin (although certainly government has to curb much of this). Maybe a right is different from a freedom, and what is right definitely is different [in the sense of not being always exactly the same thing] from freedom, and for sure the constitutions of France and the U.S. and Australia and so on weren’t written by the very hand of God, but to start indicating that freedom of speech should be further abridged because people get offended is to side with the idea a comedic (however loosely displayed) magazine should be edited by someone claiming to speak (and enforce) for Muhammed or an Islamic (or other oppressive) state or estate.–131059/
    The above two links concern the same piece of comedy work (by an atheist). One has the video.
    This is from a news show; nobody there seems to be a Charlie-Hebdo fan either.

  2. I see there’s a big difference between expressing something that some might find offensive and expressing something in a way that is intended to offend.

    There is also a big difference between what is acceptable to the citizens of a secular nation and what is acceptable to God and citizens of His Kingdom. Followers of Jesus can accept that secular nations give their citizens certain freedoms while recognising that God’s Kingdom has a different standard.

  3. I think I would go with 3 “y”s; on the positive and negative sides of the ledger would be:

    HonestY and ResponsibilitY

    HypocrisY/hypocritical or haphazard InconsistencY

    Of course, we can’t exactly lay down the law on these things.

    One reason is, then everything that gets out would be implied as
    approved. Another is the slyness with which much goes on anyway.

  4. This is from “The Guardian” news, via a link from “techpresident” (technology news online):

    In May 2012, shortly before his arrest, Badawi addressed the nature of liberalism.

    … the nature of liberalism – particularly the Saudi version – needs to be clarified. It is even more important to sketch the features and parameters of liberalism, to which the other faction, controlling and claiming exclusive monopoly of the truth, is so hostile that they are driven to discredit it without discussion or fully understanding what the word actually means. They have succeeded in planting hostility to liberalism in the minds of the public and turning people against it, lest the carpet be pulled out from under their feet. But their hold over people’s minds and society shall vanish like dust carried off in the wind.

    His final thought quoted Albert Camus: “The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.”


    Translations: Mona Mahmood, Amnesty International, Ian Black, Raya Jalabi and Gatestone Institute.

Comments are closed.