[Russ]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

The problem is, though, that again it's up to others whether they take offence, regardless of whether it was the stated intent.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/when-i-q...62?autologin=y

All the guy did was historical research and he received a bunch of threats and caused a whole bunch of offence.

If you prevent deliberate attempts to offend that's going to make society extremely sanitised. Half of our comedians are banned, Private Eye is gone, etc, etc.

Again I agree entirely. However I stand by my point earlier that if someone does or says something deliberately designed to offend or ridicule they cannot claim repercussions (regardless of how petty or unwarranted) were unexpected especially when dealing with people known for being irrational or unreasonable.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I defer to Stephen Fry

Yeah someone once asked him did that apply when people make offensive comments about homosexuals. That, of course was 'different'.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I found a comment made about me earlier in this thread somewhat offensive - big deal.

Those who get offended by criticisms of their faith need to grow up. If their faith is that strong a cartoon shouldn't even bother them in the slightest. We shouldn't pander to such ridiculous contradictions, by doing so we encourage a whole new generation of offence-takers and in turn encourage them to find even more things offensive as it works so well in shutting down criticism.

I, personally, quite like being able to offend and to be offended, and indeed to have someone tell me to stop my whining

Again I agree completely. But if you set out to offend someone, as reasonable as you are it would be unreasonable for you to not expect a reaction in some way.