For these compelling questions we invited four speakers to give reasons why the motion is true or false. After you hear their arguments you can vote upon them below the video. Moreover, if you have anything to say, you can use the comment thread to express your points as well. Enjoy the video!

Speakers of the debate:

Affirmation side: Cristina (AEGEE-Verona) and Ekaterina (AEGEE-Voronezh)

Opposition side: Jana (AEGEE-Praha) and Maria (AEGEE-Verona)

Ivan Bielik

In principio erat verbum et verbum erat apud Deum et verbum erat Deus. (In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.)

It is well know that philosophy is science of questions. All the time man is asking, but instead of finding answers man is just opening new questions, over and over again.

This time it is open, if I may say one controversial and contradictory question. Question where in the end we’ll ask ourselves; what is freedom of speech, and how to define it? Don’t be surprised if you stay closed mouth.

If we define freedom of speech where one is able to express his thoughts and beliefs as Malik says, offensive speech should be included too, from Azemina’s point of view. But this can be very queasily. Truth is, one should be free to say whatever he/she wants, but if it is offensive, wouldn’t it be disrespectful, wouldn’t it hurts others feelings and in the same time? Observed from this point of view, does it harm some other freedoms; freedom for choice, on privacy, spiritual privacy etc.?

In spite of it, Azemina thinks that insulting should be viewed as a normal and acceptable part of plural society. She says that on first place there shouldn’t be any term such as blasphemy. Society should make difference between words that wound and actions that kill says Azemina.

Back to Malik’s view, it’s not word about constraining. What is there, is the same right of not saying anything too, same as saying the same. Religious people have right to not accept or not hear something that they find offensive. In accordance with that right it clarifies that there is no constraining freedoms of speech from religious side.

While Azemina defends stance, Freedom of speech is constrained by religious sensitivities, whereas no place for secular society, because every open, honest word will be interpreted as offence, Malik sees it different. He stands behind, there is nothing such as religious sensitivities or constraint, there is only self-interested state with its tools.

State is one which “freedom of speech” shaped by needs of global organizations and protected by itself in the name of progress ought to be both constrained and threatened by religious sensitivities. Freedom of speech is constrained within, what’s seen as, permanent civilizational progress, says Malik.

In the end is our speech free within society’s convention, or only within bless of Deity? Or should we ask if our speech is free at all, or it is all part of our imagination, where we are only being puppets for a higher aim?

As you cannot stay indifferent on this topic, share your opinion with us. Tell us is everything indeed only about religious sensitivity, or is it the same just being tool of our eternal empires/ states. Define THE freedom of speech.

Affirmative speaker: Azemina Ćorić

Opposition speaker: Malik Pašić

Sabiha Kapetanovic, Moderator of the debate.

Defending the motion

Azemina Ćorić, student of International Relations.

Why call it the freedom of speech if you can’t really say what you think? This is a question that comes to my mind whenever the topic of freedom of speech and religion comes out. It seems logical to some people that religion should be spared from the freedom of speech just because it is considered sacred by some people. Religion is something subjective and as people are free to believe in something, so should people have the right of free speech no matter the topic.

Probably when it comes to this topic the first example that everyone would remember would be the controversial pictures of prophet Muhammed made in Denmark. Those pictures were considered insulting and it was considered spreading hatred just as the film that came out in the U.S.A. Much of what is deemed ‘hatred’ today is in fact the giving of offence. And shouldn’t the giving of offence be viewed as a normal and acceptable part of plural society? Why should it be any different when it comes to religion?

The act of insulting or showing contempt or lack of reverence for a religious deity or the irreverence towards religious or holy persons or things is called blasphemy. Many countries have laws to punish blasphemy. Should there be any laws for blasphemy and should there be any term such as blasphemy in the first place? Recent years have seen increasing demands from governments and individuals that free speech should be limited – both in the West and in international law, in order to protect religious sensitivities but it should be remembered that the very freedoms that allow someone to insult religious sensitivities also allow the religious believer to practice his or her faith free from fear of persecution.

Despite this disturbing development governments and intellectuals in liberal democracies have often given only reluctant support to the value of freedom of expression instead of employing language that obfuscates and relativizes the difference between words that wound and actions that kill. By this logic those who insult religious feelings are extremists and that different from those who respond to insults with violence. Insulting religion may not be a polite thing to do, but it certainly should not be something you put in the criminal code. When you do so it becomes censorship.

Against the motion

Malik Pašić, student of Dramaturgy.

If there is something called “religious sensitivity”, it probably refers to state of being especially cautious regarding phenomena that diverge from religious beliefs. We cannot define freedom, but we can say that it requests one’s possibility to make worthy choices. Freedom of speech requests that one is able to express his thoughts and beliefs.

So does “religious sensitivity” represent a difficulty in meeting that request? If it does then it means that at least one or both of next two claims are true:

I. Religious worldview constrains persons or groups freedom of speech.

II. Because of sensitivities of some groups regarding their religious beliefs, others freedom of speech is constrained

If religious worldview supports freedom of speech, and if it meets others (non-believers) request for freedom of speech, then there is no basis on which these concepts are confronted.

(first point) Religious worldview accepts world as a creation and doesn’t demand scientific proof for believing. Most believers would agree that there is something called absolute knowledge, and that it certainly isn’t, and can’t be, in human hands. Knowledge is not wholly achievement of a human, but also God’s mercy in the same way as nothing is ever really created by a man. Quest for knowledge is then a quest for comprehending His creation. Therefore, religious worldview is open for acquiring knowledge, but it can never allow any certainty. If no human knowledge is really worthy, all quests for knowledge are valid – as they are nothing more than attempt to realize own position in what’s been already determined. Every assumption is then guesswork, and there is nothing outside divine creation that can be discussed, there are no mechanisms, within religious worldview, for constraining believers’ freedom of speech.

(second point) Following what’s been said in first argument, it should not be hard to understand why non-believers freedom of speech is not constrained. Freedom of speech requests that one is able to express his thoughts and beliefs to anyone who wants to listen to them. So freedom of not wanting to hear is implicated in the freedom of speech, any religious man or woman has right not to enter the dialogue if he or she finds it offensive, as they have right to manifest themselves towards any speech that confronts their beliefs. Religion tendency to expand implies it being open for dialogue, trying to give it’s answers to permanent questions that bother humanity.

So what’s the problem then?

There was a time in history when societies gave their freedoms to be guarded by secular states. As global organizations had mechanisms to enforce state laws that ought to guarantee equal rights and freedom for all, whole world seemed united in the same important goal for all humanity.

Even theoretically, state can violate freedom of speech, but state cannot guarantee its protection. When states proclaim personal freedoms, they condition societies to agree upon terms given from global organizations. For example, Bosnia and Herzegovina has to meet the requirement of progress in the field of allowing personal freedoms so it can get a favorable loan. Society is forced to change itself in allowing what’s globally been agreed upon as freedoms, all for sake of the state’s interests.

This “freedom of speech” shaped by needs of global organizations and protected by state in the name of progress ought to be both constrained and threatened by religious sensitivities.

First step in building global society is to make all societies agree on same idea of progress. Only within the speech of this progress is your freedom of speech guaranteed. So, freedom of speech is constrained within, what’s seen as, permanent civilizational progress. Your speech is free within convention.

Your freedom is confined within what’s agreed upon as our general cause, your speech is confined within what’s agreed upon as generally accepted knowledge.

Doubt, from which enormous human progress was born, is lost somewhere in history. Faith is one of the rare positions that firmly stand against any certainty in human knowledge. This “freedom of speech” disqualifies religious worldview as a valid position for a speaker. When it tells him: “use our methods of acquiring knowledge, agree on our common goals, use our ways to discuss your problems, fight within legal fight, speak within legal speech, find your interest within what’s our civilizational progress”, what it really tells him is: “leave your belief” or at least “leave it inside your private place”. When the society decides without people it gets confronted with what it calls “religious sensitivity”. It can not call them “people with different opinion” nor “people who were left without their freedom of speech because their worldview is religious”, can it? The “religious sensitivities” sounds better – it is a condition, it can be, it can pass, but it can not decide.