The problem emerges as a result of cartoons of Prophet Mohammad (P.B.U.H.) in 2005 by the Danish Newspaper "Jayllands Posten". It created a situation that exposed the differences of different worlds based on religions and beliefs. Freedom of expression and opinion in international instruments based on acknowledged human rights became controversial in relation to rights and duties. In regards to Danish cartoons, principles of harm and offence as explained by Mill and Feinberg and their legal validity are applied to judge the situation. Laws are based on norms and values philosophically exerted out of customs and practices. I would present that human behaviors are meant to be treated based on realities but not on cynic philosophical argumentations or debates.
My purpose of research on the cartoons violence issue is to explain the moral grounds of universal human rights standards required to solve the dilemma peacefully. I have presented past, present and future of the controversy. All the conflict is misrepresented if they are presented out of context in relation to discussing the history of the conflict. For instance all the conflicts which are a threat to world peace have long history. And almost all the conflicts are based on religious grounds, for instance Palestine, Kashmir and the recent phenomenon terrorism is not out of this circle at all. My aim was to understand and give a brief but broad view of the cartoon controversy by describing its past as well. Describing religious conflict as the historical background does not mean we are still following the past but my aim was to show the current situation of our world which has become a global village in which personal bias of a single person can escalate a world conflict if few people decide to manipulate the situation. I certainly disprove any "clash of civilizations" but wanted to explain how we can build bridges among different cultural and social differences.
Table of Contents
Chapter 1
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Aim of research
1.3 Research questions
1.4 Theory
1.5 Method and material
1.6 Disposition
Chapter 2
2.1 Historical Background into Religious hatred and Cartoons Controversy
Chapter 3
3.1 Freedom of speech; an absolute right or not?
3.2 The Clash of rights: Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion
3.3 Derogation in case of Maintenance of International Peace and Security
3.4 Freedom of Speech and Religious Discrimination
3.5 Freedom of Speech and Propaganda for Religious Hatred
3.6 The Right and Reputation of Others and Freedom of Speech
3.7 Freedom of Speech and Universal Morals
3.8 Universal Human Rights and Cartoons
Chapter 4
4.1 Freedom of speech under human values and norms
4.2 Mill’s harm principle
4.3 Feinburg’s offence principle
4.4 Democratic values
Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This thesis examines the controversy surrounding the 2005 Danish cartoons of Prophet Mohammad, exploring the moral and legal tensions between freedom of speech and the protection of religious beliefs and international peace. It seeks to determine whether philosophical frameworks, particularly those regarding harm and offense, justify legal restrictions on expressions that incite religious hatred.
- Legal and philosophical analysis of freedom of speech limitations.
- The clash between freedom of expression and religious sensibilities.
- Application of Mill’s Harm Principle and Feinberg’s Offence Principle to the cartoon controversy.
- The role of international human rights instruments in governing speech and religious discrimination.
Excerpt from the Book
4.3 Feinberg’s Offence Principle
The most recent attempt to cope with the situation is Feinberg’s Offence Principle. He recommends that an offence is grounded in immorality can have destructive consequences and potentially damaging. Responding to the harm principle, he suggests that it does not reach far enough and cannot shoulder all of the work necessary for a principle of free speech. He says that the harm principle sets the standards to high and that we can prohibit some forms of expression that are not appropriate and offensive. Offending someone is less serious than harming someone, Feinberg's principle reads as follows:
“it is always a good reason in support of a proposed criminal prohibition that it would probably be an effective way of preventing serious offense...to persons other than the actor, and that it is probably a necessary means to that end...The principle asserts, in effect, that the prevention of offensive conduct is properly the state's business”
Summary of Chapters
Chapter 1: Provides an introduction to the research, defining the scope, aim, research questions, theoretical framework, and the methodology used to analyze the cartoon controversy.
Chapter 2: Outlines the historical context of religious conflicts and how the publication of the cartoons escalated into a global controversy.
Chapter 3: Explores legal perspectives on limiting freedom of speech, discussing human rights instruments and the tension between freedom of expression and the protection of religious rights.
Chapter 4: Applies philosophical theories, specifically Mill's harm principle and Feinberg's offence principle, to determine the legitimacy of restricting speech within a democratic society.
Conclusion: Summarizes the findings, asserting that freedom of speech is not an absolute right and must be balanced against the need to prevent religious hatred and maintain international peace.
Keywords
Freedom of speech, Danish cartoons, human rights, religious hatred, Mill's Harm Principle, Feinberg's Offence Principle, international law, religious discrimination, freedom of expression, moral values, global society, secularism, Islam, blasphemy, democratic values.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this thesis?
The thesis investigates the 2005 Danish cartoon controversy as a case study for the tension between the international right to freedom of speech and the need to respect religious beliefs to prevent global unrest.
What are the primary themes discussed?
The central themes include the legal limitations of free speech, the historical background of religious intolerance, the application of philosophical harm and offense principles, and the role of democratic values in managing multi-cultural societies.
What is the main research question?
The core research aims to understand the cartoon controversy historically, examine international law regarding speech limitations, and determine if philosophy provides moral grounds to restrict speech in certain contexts.
Which scientific methodology does the author use?
The author employs a combination of legal analysis of domestic, regional, and international documents alongside an argumentation analysis of philosophical principles to evaluate the morality of speech limits.
What does the main body cover?
The main body systematically reviews the history of religious conflicts, the current legal framework governing freedom of speech, and the theoretical application of harm and offense principles to determine the morality of the cartoon publications.
Which keywords define this work?
Key terms include Freedom of speech, Danish cartoons, human rights, religious hatred, Harm Principle, Offence Principle, and democratic values.
How does the author interpret the role of international law in this context?
The author argues that international human rights law, such as the ICCPR, permits restrictions on free speech under specific conditions, particularly to respect the rights or reputations of others and to protect public order or morals.
How is Feinberg’s Offence Principle applied to the case study?
The author uses Feinberg's principle to argue that because the publication of the cartoons was intentionally offensive and foreseeable in its negative impact, it might be categorized as an offense that the state has a legitimate interest in preventing.
- Citar trabajo
- Ghazanfar Ahmad Adnan (Autor), 2013, Danish Cartoons and Freedom of Speech. Principles of Harm and Offence, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/349951
