ok, +Jeff Beamsley
, I see your point, but this still begs the question: who get's to decide what should be exempt from free speech based on which groups acting offended?
Here's where I draw the line: if actual people are verbally attacked (such as gays, blacks, minorities) to the point that they are effectively pushed out of society.
Most of those "rules" are actually not laws but common sense and a majority consensus in society. It's just not ok to use hate speak on any of those groups. I have to say, I am no American, I'm German, we have a slightly different situation here, but in essence, it's very similar.
So, I do, in general, agree with you that there are things that can be said that lie outside of what society agrees on as being acceptible. Not all of this is necessarily legislated, much of it is just frowned upon by the majority. This video, I think, is such a case. However, the neighbouring cases of the Danish Mohammed Cartoons were not, despite the fact that they sparked similar outrage in the "islamic world" (a stupid term btw, and I whish I could come up with a better one).
What makes both cases special is that no living person was attacked or ridiculed or even just portraied. It was a guy that has been dead for almost 1400 years!
And so, he was shown having Sex? Read up on Mohammed, he was married to at least 9 women, maybe even 12 or 14 and he had slaves and concubines, some of which he later married, some not. He had eight children. I think the guy had a lot of sex, and for his own benefit and that of his many wives, I hope it was damn good!
Can you be offended about reality?
Do we have to stop talking about reality?
Do I have to fear that someone somewhere will be killed because I looked up this information from Wikipedia and re-posted it here?
Hurt religious feelings are a free ticket to be offended by anything and everything. Saying that Jesus, in all probability, was not born from a virgin will get some christians offended, stating that we evolved from monkeys will get people from christian and islamic faiths offended. In both cases, a majority of those otherwise holding that religious belief will agree, virgin birth is a fable and creation is a myth.
So again: where to draw the line?
When 10 people go out on a riot?
When 100 people go out on a riot?
When 1000 people go out on a riot?
When 1 innocent person gets killed? 10? 100?
Dan Dennett wrote about religious extremism that it's time for he moderate religious to take responsibility for what is done in the name of their religion. Many religions have a values system that is turned on it's head: the crazier the ideas you are willing to believe in, the stronger your belief, the higher you are valued. That can lead to a situation where those that are valued the highest commit the worst atrocities, because they are closer to the deity. This is the hard part for religions: they have to let go the old idea that the farther you are from reality, the closer you are to god. That leads to trouble with reality.
I'm an atheist, as I said above, and I hope that, one day, we'll see a world without religion. Not in my lifetime, I'm pretty sure about that.
Until then, I take the freedom to laugh about religious nonsense, I use my rights to push back against religion where it invades my life and I have the courtesy to treat anyone who is moderately religious like an intelligent person, despite the fact that I have my doubts when I look at the nonsense they are required to believe.
I will not accept that any rights will be cut down because they collide with some religious belief somewhere on this earth, small or mighty.
And neither should you.