is Iran more free than Australia?

[winterbadger]

A deliberately provocative suggestion, but one could understand thinking that from today's headlines.

Flight ban for anti-Bush T-shirt

A passenger barred from a Qantas airlines flight for wearing a T-shirt depicting US President George Bush as a terrorist has threatened legal action. ... The T-shift features an image of President George W Bush, along with the slogan "World's Number One Terrorist". ... A Qantas spokesman defended the airline's decision, saying: "Whether made verbally or on a T-shirt, comments with the potential to offend other customers or threaten the security of a Qantas group aircraft will not be tolerated". [How does a shirt 'threaten the security of an aircraft'?]

Iranian cleric attacks president

Senior Iranian dissident cleric, Grand Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri, has attacked President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over nuclear issues and the economy. ... The grand ayatollah complained that people kept on shouting slogans about nuclear rights, but he asked: "Don't we have other rights too?"

It was a pointed reference to concerns about diminishing freedom of speech in Iran under Mr Ahmadinejad.

Comments

[winterbadger]

After reading your post on this same article in your LJ, I confess myself completely baffled as to what you truly believe about this event.

Do yout think people have the right to express their personal beliefs, as long as doing so does no (demonstrable, physical) harm to others?

Do you believe that people have the right to attack people whose beliefs they do not like?

Do you believe that individuals, businesses, or governments have the right to restrict other peoples' free speech for other than realistic, demonstrable safety reasons?

If I say something that you don't agree with, and you hit me, who is at fault? Me, for expressing an opinion you don't want to hear? or you, for hitting me?

[candlelight1228.livejournal.com]

You know... I am completely confused myself now! I think I am saying one thing and I guess it's coming out differently than I think I am saying it.

1) Yes

2) No

3) No

4) Me

The point as I see it, giving Quantas the benefit of the doubt (because I am an idealist), is that Quantas acted with the safety of the passengers in mind. (My business would probably never be in a similar position.) They may have reacted out of fear and perhaps made the wrong decision but I honestly believe they were thinking of the safety of those on thier planes.

[winterbadger]

OK, I feel far less confused now! I should have asked those clarifying questions sooner. :-)

I imagine Qantas probably were thinking about, not so much safety (sorry, I just don't buy that), as trying to prevent controversy which would make them look bad. However, I think their solution is morally bad, legally dubious, and in practical terms a disaster, because now they have far more negative press than (IMO) they would have gotten if they had just asked the guy to wear something else and dropped it when he said "No".

[candlelight1228.livejournal.com]

I agree; it was probably a bad decision on thier part. Alas, though unfortunate they now have to find a way out of this one.

Here's another one (http://news.aol.com/entertainment/movies/articles/_a/dakota-fanning-speaks-up-on-rape-scene/20070124065909990001) for you. This is what I meant by people being sensitive. This stuff happens everyday. I applaud the movie for trying to bring it to light and for Dakota showing wisdom & maturity beyond her years.