Let me say that I believe in freedom of speech, but it has to be balanced with responsibility.
I believe in responsibility, but it has to be balanced with free speech. Unexpurgated, offensive speech. The alternative is stagnation and stupidity.
I am no fan of honorifics, but congratulations to Sir Salman Rushdie.
The only things constraining freedom of speech are our human rights to truth, privacy, and life.
Falsely crying “Fire!” in a theatre, violates truth, and risks life.
Outing someone as gay without their permission, violates their right to privacy.
There is a problem when people elevate dogma concerning supernatural beings (faith) as inviolate truth.
Given that we can only aspire to truth (and never know it for certain), all we actually have is consensus. Consensus is a human construct. And this means that unfortunately, if enough people elevate dogma as truth, it ends up surpassing freedom of speech (blasphemy/heresy).
So, Salman Rushdie finds sympathy from those of one consensus (who don’t believe absolute truth is attainable, but always open to question), and antipathy from those of another consensus (who do believe they are in possession of absolute truth).
The question is, is mankind doomed to self-destruction whilst some societies elevate religious dogma into unquestionable truth?
God is always on the side of those with faith.
Those without god will never know the truth.