You have no actual response, so you post a meme.
Come on, dude, you are the one claiming Galileo said the earth is round...
At any rate, considering what you probably wanted to say, this is hardly an argument for freeze peach. Galileo claimed the earth orbited around the sun. Once he arrived to this, he was explicitly told to not teach this until the matter was settled between the astronomers and theologians that were trying to assess whether remarks on the bible about this not being the case were meant to be taken literally or not. He initially agreed to that but started teaching what he believed anyway because he believed he would be above Church authority. He was wrong.
But even if that wasn't the case, even if this was a real example of abuse of authority; that would still be all that it was, an abuse. That authority may be abused is not in itself enough evidence to show that it must never be wielded.
What do I care about what protestants did? I keep telling you, I am talking about real blasphemy.
Like praying to the dead and worshiping idols? Oops.
Nope, saying dumb things such as that God created us to suffer or that He is wrong is blasphemy. Worshipping idols is wrong but it isn't blasphemy in itself. Praying for the dead to intercede for us on the other hand is a salvific practice, as long as you don't literally worship them as if they were on the same level as God.
Except they won't because you aren't in charge. That's the part you're missing.
It's more likely that YOU will be put in jail for disagreeing with them the way things are going. But keep advocating censorship. See where it gets you.
Let's consider this here. Why exactly aren't you complaining that people are put in jail at all then? Similar to the idea of freedom of speech is the idea of freedom of movement; the notion that people should be able to go where they want without restrictions from the government. Unlike freedom of speech, though, people are much more willing to let this one slide since doing otherwise would obviously destroy society. People shouldn't be able to go into private property of another ust because they want, obviously, otherwise the very idea of private property is lost. Likewise, saying the government shouldn't ever restrict the freedom of movement of someone would quickly result in a lot of dangerous people in the streets.
But I think this is a very telling example. Why exactly should the government be allowed to wield authority to stop someone from going somewhere, but not the authority to stop someone from saying something? One argument is that one's thoughts and words are more important than where one can go; but I think this works better as an argument for the opposite side. It is exactly because these things are so important that they should be subject to authority. In fact, I would say that many of the errors of our current times are direct result of not having enough control over this.
Another argument is that the exceptions to the freedom of movement (and to freedom of speech) are given exactly because they are needed to keep these freedoms from being misused. But in that case, freedom of (insert your favourite) is not a value, it is not something good in itself; but rather a means to an end, which would be good. But if that is the case, you can't really use "freedom of whatever" to justify anything. In that case, the object for which you want freedom must still be justified in the view of what is good and what isn't; and that is the opposite position of liberalism.
So, my point is, sure, authority can be misused. It is entirely possible that in the coming years I might be persecuted for being a Christian, for instance. But that in itself is not proof that authority shouldn't exist; only that it should be wielded by good people, not evil ones.
Again,
.
Still not an argument.
I really don't know if you are being serious. The so called "liberals" are now restricting people from saying hate speech and whatnot and are the reason this thread was started in first place; while the so called conservatives mostly want to conserve the "honoured tradition" that came after the french revolution. Which world do you live in?
Authority exists to be used for what is good. Refusing to do so is just letting people use the same for evil.
There's a difference between letting someone say something and letting someone do something, even in the fantasy world where people get thrown in jail for blasphemy, which hasn't existed in your lifetime or mine.
Saying something is doing something. And frequently it is the worst kind of thing you could do. Also, again, which world do you live in? Do you really think people aren't thrown in jail for saying stuff nowadays?
People used to understand this. Then again, people used to be able to talk without posting a meme and thinking they've won the argument.
