There is a genre of punditry that I call "I believe in free speech but…." The but then effectively negates the professed belief in free speech.

An example of the genre is Julian Baggini's recent column in the Guardian newspaper. See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/03/art.religion

Let’s suppose that Australia has (at long last) a bill of rights that guarantees free speech. Which of the following should be protected by a free speech guarantee in a bill of rights? Which should be prohibited?

(1)Denying the Holocaust

(2)We have all heard of Serrano’s “Piss Christ”* It is a photograph of a crucifix immersed in a yellow fluid. Catholics especially protested when it was displayed in an Australian gallery. The artistic "elite" defended the gallery vociferously. Well how about “Piss Torah?” Torah scrolls are expensive but with photoshop all things are possible.

(3)In the US burning the American flag is protected free speech under the first amendment. How about burning a Torah scroll?

(4)A statue of Jesus with an impressive erection.**

For the record I think ALL the above should be protected by a free speech code.

*See: http://images.artnet.com/artwork_images_423908876_165080_andres-serrano.jpg

**See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/03/religion.art

Steve,

How about Mohammed with an erection?

Or Mohammed immersed in urine?

We already know how that's going to turn out, don't we?

Paul.L

The question is:

Should the 4 examples I described in my original post be protected by a free speech guarantee in a bill of rights?

This eccentric old Jew says YES TO ALL 4!

What do you think, Paul.L?

What about a Davidic Star dipped in urine? Or a torah?

Extremists of all the Abrahamic religions are nutjobs. While I don't claim exhaustive knowledge, I can't think of an example of a polytheist or atheist religion or philosophy that would object to mistreatment of a religious symbol with the same vituperation. Even the Hindus, famously volatile as some parts of India may be, are rarely moved to much anger by such acts.

Yes to all four.

It's actually our anti-religious vilification laws that are cramping our free speech. If Polycarp and his Muslim or Jewish or Scientologist equivalents are allowed to irritate people outside the State Library in Melbourne, then the rest of us have the right to make fun of the ridiculous things they believe.

I'll see Steven's four and Paul's two, and raise the stakes by adding non-pornographic artistic depictions of naked children.