There is a range of arguments underlying free speech. You cannot know whether something is of value before it has been expressed. Given the diversity of tastes it is impossible to trust anyone with the authority of judging what to ban correctly. There is a value to dissent and so forth. But the most compelling argument is this: I feel safe in a society where some of this offensive stuff gets through. I feel safe because I can say to myself: I know my beliefs and freedom of expression will always be protected, because we know even expression we don’t like is protected. That is the surest guarantee of my safety. So we need to say this to religious orthodoxy of any community: the reason we allow expression of things you find distasteful is because this is the surest guarantee of your freedom. A lot of people find what you propagate offensive; some aspect of someone’s religion is offensive to someone else. It is beside the point to argue that these things, properly understood, aren’t offensive. Who will be the judge of that claim? We are secure if we do not give anyone, the state, society, or majorities, the authority to impose their judgments on us.

We also need to get over this claptrap about respecting people’s beliefs. This is an impossible demand, for belief is not a matter of will. The only proper respect you can show people is by respecting their rights, not by engaging in the chicanery that you really respect their beliefs. The illusion we nurtured that somehow all religions need to be respected, that no one should find religion silly enough to want to recast it or lampoon it is all coming home to roost. Who all will we protect from being offended? It is fatuous to think that we can create laws that will protect all from offence. The only thing that does is create competitive offence mongering.

... contd.