It is the mark of a gentleman to criticise without giving offence.

Moved on, you say?

Then why haven’t the courts thrown out the “clown” case?

It has ramifications that spread to the rest of society also.

The present widespread Muslim terrorism is a case in point spreading beyond the cartoonist and the mocked Mohammad.

On the other hand, one can be offended by anything. I am personally not offended by anyone calling me names but am deeply offended by pedlars of pseudo-science.

And this is why freedom of expression cannot be limited because of offence. Any valid or arbitrary comment can cause offence to someone if it challenges dearly held beliefs.

Small point:-

‘Tout le monde’ (excuse my bad French) refers to it as a campaign, no less:

See e.g. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/01/11/golden-globes-2015-helen-mirren-je-suis-charlie_n_6452930.html

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/01/21/huin-j21.html

http://www.timesofisrael.com/jesuischarlie-campaign-angers-al-jazeera-staff/

http://betanews.com/2015/01/09/apple-google-and-facebook-lend-support-and-money-to-je-suis-charlie-campaign/

And this CAMPAIGN is also raising money: http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/publisher-news/article/65327-je-suis-charlie-campaign-raises-40-000.html

More worrying is that if we stand for “Charlie” and the ‘right’ to insult as it has, then we stand to upset many, many people. See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2916562/Incredible-scenes-tens-thousands-gather-protest-against-Charlie-Hebdo-Chechnya-day-revealed-print-run-magazine-record-SEVEN-MILLION.html

It’s fine to have different opinions and heated discussions, but it is not fine to allow crass and patently insensitive insult.

Libel means insulting, offending, defaming and harming the reputation of others.

There is no right to offend and to abuse others.

There is the duty to repect other views especially religious beliefs. This is the diffence betwwen freedom (Liberta’) and abuse of freedom (libertinagg).

[Daphne – You are wrong, David. The courts’ interpretation of Maltese libel law has moved with the times. Insults alone are not enough. Libel constitutes lies or wrong information which are damaging to the individual. For instance, if I say that Minister X is a waste of space, that is not libel. But if I say that Minister X took a bribe to give a tender to John X, and this is untrue, that most definitely is libel.]

Being offended is a personal choice. Nothing really happens when you are offended. Take yourself less seriously, life will be much happier.

It’s easy to present freedom limitations as good. That doesn’t mean they are.

Freedom of movement ends when you cause someone else discomfort.

Freedom of spending your money ends when you can spend it otherwise for the common good.

Freedom of sexual activity ends when it goes against others’ morals.

Right. Libelling is a concrete form of hurting and harming someone.

J Stuart Mills contends that there is the responsibility “… to prevent harm to others” and according to J Feinberg “…not to give offence”.

That obvious limitation to the freedom of expression is illustrated by laws requiring that printing be licenced by the state and also by different laws against libel and slander, pornography, sedition, incitement to hate, disclosing state secrets and classified information, denying the right to privacy, and in the defence of public order and security.

The list is endless. It varies from state to state according to local exigencies.