Zensur ist Unsinn, sie gibt wenigen (Mächtugen/Regierenden/etc.) die Möglichkeit, viele (Regierte, Individuen/etc.) die Denkmöglichkeiten zu beschneiden und somit eine Kontrolle auszuüben.
Im Namen der Religion, der Antidiskriminierung und ähnlicher Denkmodelle wird die Zensur immer wieder gerne mehr oder weniger unverblümt gefordert bzw. durchgeführt.
Wenden wir uns einem besonders heiklen Thema zu: der Nacktheit. Da der Mensch angezogen auf die Welt kam, entdeckte er erst in einem recht späten Stadium die Nacktheit und wusste sie sofort als etwas Unanständiges und geheim zu behandelndes einzuordnen: Nacktheit ist verwerflich - das wissen wir.
(Wer von uns duscht schon nackt?)

Doch jetzt macht sich eine unverantwortlich handelnde Schar von Weltverbesserern auf und propagiert Nacktheit als etwas, das nicht hässlich, abstossend und unzumutbar sein soll!?
Nun - ich konnte nicht anders und schloss mich kurzerhand dieser elitären Denkrichtung an und tue mein Möglichstes, die neue Denkfreiheit zu unterstützen: Nackte zeigt Euch!

...und hier einer der wenigen Artikel zum Thema, der durchdacht ist:

Free speech should override religious sensitivities. And it is not just the property of the West

AFP“I DISAGREE with what you say and even if you are threatened with death I will not defend very strongly your right to say it.” That, with apologies to Voltaire, seems to have been the initial pathetic response of some western governments to the republication by many European newspapers of several cartoons of Muhammad first published in a Danish newspaper in September. When the republished cartoons stirred Muslim violence across the world, Britain and America took fright. It was “unacceptable” to incite religious hatred by publishing such pictures, said America's State Department. Jack Straw, Britain's foreign secretary, called their publication unnecessary, insensitive, disrespectful and wrong.

Really? There is no question that these cartoons are offensive to many Muslims (see article). They offend against a convention in Islam that the Prophet should not be depicted. And they offend because they can be read as equating Islam with terrorism: one cartoon has Muhammad with a bomb for his headgear. It is not a good idea for newspapers to insult people's religious or any other beliefs just for the sake of it. But that is and should be their own decision, not a decision for governments, clerics or other self-appointed arbiters of taste and responsibility. In a free country people should be free to publish whatever they want within the limits set by law.

No country permits completely free speech. Typically, it is limited by prohibitions against libel, defamation, obscenity, judicial or parliamentary privilege and what have you. In seven European countries it is illegal to say that Hitler did not murder millions of Jews. Britain still has a pretty dormant blasphemy law (the Christian God only) on its statute books. Drawing the line requires fine judgements by both lawmakers and juries. Britain, for example, has just jailed a notorious imam, Abu Hamza of London's Finsbury Park mosque, for using language a jury construed as solicitation to murder (see article). Last week, however, another British jury acquitted Nick Griffin, a notorious bigot who calls Islam “vicious and wicked”, on charges of stirring racial hatred.

Drawing the line
In this newspaper's view, the fewer constraints that are placed on free speech the better. Limits designed to protect people (from libel and murder, for example) are easier to justify than those that aim in some way to control thinking (such as laws on blasphemy, obscenity and Holocaust-denial). Denying the Holocaust should certainly not be outlawed: far better to let those who deny well-documented facts expose themselves to ridicule than pose as martyrs. But the Muhammad cartoons were lawful in all the European countries where they were published. And when western newspapers lawfully publish words or pictures that cause offence—be they ever so unnecessary, insensitive or disrespectful—western governments should think very carefully before denouncing them.

Freedom of expression, including the freedom to poke fun at religion, is not just a hard-won human right but the defining freedom of liberal societies. When such a freedom comes under threat of violence, the job of governments should be to defend it without reservation. To their credit, many politicians in continental Europe have done just that. France's interior minister, Nicolas Sarkozy, said rather magnificently that he preferred “an excess of caricature to an excess of censorship”—though President Jacques Chirac later spoiled the effect by condemning the cartoons as a “manifest provocation”.

Shouldn't the right to free speech be tempered by a sense of responsibility? Of course. Most people do not go about insulting their fellows just because they have a right to. The media ought to show special sensitivity when the things they say might stir up hatred or hurt the feelings of vulnerable minorities. But sensitivity cannot always ordain silence. Protecting free expression will often require hurting the feelings of individuals or groups, even if this damages social harmony. The Muhammad cartoons may be such a case.

In Britain and America, few newspapers feel that their freedoms are at risk. But on the European mainland, some of the papers that published the cartoons say they did so precisely because their right to publish was being called into question. In the Netherlands two years ago a film maker was murdered for daring to criticise Islam. Danish journalists have received death threats. In a climate in which political correctness has morphed into fear of physical attack, showing solidarity may well be the responsible thing for a free press to do. And the decision, of course, must lie with the press, not governments.

It's good to talk
It is no coincidence that the feeblest response to the outpouring of Muslim rage has come from Britain and America. Having sent their armies rampaging into the Muslim heartland, planting their flags in Afghanistan and Iraq and putting Saddam Hussein on trial, George Bush and Tony Blair have some making up to do with Muslims. Long before making a drama out of the Danish cartoons, a great many Muslims had come to equate the war on terrorism with a war against Islam. This is an equation Osama bin Laden and other enemies of the West would like very much to encourage and exploit. In circumstances in which embassies are being torched, isn't denouncing the cartoons the least the West can do to show its respect for Islam, and to stave off a much-feared clash of civilisations?

No. There are many things western countries could usefully say and do to ease relations with Islam, but shutting up their own newspapers is not one of them. People who feel that they are not free to give voice to their worries about terrorism, globalisation or the encroachment of new cultures or religions will not love their neighbours any better. If anything, the opposite is the case: people need to let off steam. And freedom of expression, remember, is not just a pillar of western democracy, as sacred in its own way as Muhammad is to pious Muslims. It is also a freedom that millions of Muslims have come to enjoy or to aspire to themselves. Ultimately, spreading and strengthening it may be one of the best hopes for avoiding the incomprehension that can lead civilisations into conflict.

Quelle

Das sagte mal einer, der es sich leisten konnte. Dank der Traditionsstärke unserer französischen Nachbarn könnte man auch heute wieder vom Sonnenkönig sprechen:

> aus: International Herald Tribune, 15.1.2005

Plan would shield Chirac as senator for life

PARIS Supporters of President Jacques Chirac are pushing for a constitutional change that would make him a senator for life after he leaves office and thus shield him from the threat of future legal proceedings, newspapers reported Friday.
.
The proposed measure would mean that all former presidents automatically become members of the upper house of Parliament instead of joining the Constitutional Council, France's highest judicial authority, which they do under the existing arrangement.
.
Chirac, 72, cannot be prosecuted as long as he remains president, but when he steps down he risks being placed under judicial investigation in a series of party-finance scams during his 18-year tenure as mayor of Paris.
.
By becoming a life senator, the conservative president would enjoy parliamentary immunity, which would make it extremely difficult, though not impossible, to bring him before the courts, the left-leaning Libération and Le Monde newspapers said.
.
The risk of being made to face trial after he loses his presidential immunity is believed to be a major factor in Chirac's deliberations over whether to run for an unprecedented third term in 2007. So far he has kept the possibility open.
.
The proposal, which would require changing the country's 1958 constitution, is being promoted by Senator Patrice Gélard, a Chirac supporter, and will be formally proposed in the Senate on Tuesday, Le Monde said.
.
But both papers agreed that its chances of success were small, as any constitutional change would have to be confirmed by referendum.
.
Chirac was mayor of Paris from 1977 to 1995, during which time courts have established that his Rally for the Republic party used a number of illegal devices to raise money with its influence at City Hall. Attempts to question Chirac on the affair have foundered because of his presidential immunity.
.PARIS Supporters of President Jacques Chirac are pushing for a constitutional change that would make him a senator for life after he leaves office and thus shield him from the threat of future legal proceedings, newspapers reported Friday.
.
The proposed measure would mean that all former presidents automatically become members of the upper house of Parliament instead of joining the Constitutional Council, France's highest judicial authority, which they do under the existing arrangement.
.
Chirac, 72, cannot be prosecuted as long as he remains president, but when he steps down he risks being placed under judicial investigation in a series of party-finance scams during his 18-year tenure as mayor of Paris.
.
By becoming a life senator, the conservative president would enjoy parliamentary immunity, which would make it extremely difficult, though not impossible, to bring him before the courts, the left-leaning Libération and Le Monde newspapers said.
.
The risk of being made to face trial after he loses his presidential immunity is believed to be a major factor in Chirac's deliberations over whether to run for an unprecedented third term in 2007. So far he has kept the possibility open.
.
The proposal, which would require changing the country's 1958 constitution, is being promoted by Senator Patrice Gélard, a Chirac supporter, and will be formally proposed in the Senate on Tuesday, Le Monde said.
.
But both papers agreed that its chances of success were small, as any constitutional change would have to be confirmed by referendum.
.
Chirac was mayor of Paris from 1977 to 1995, during which time courts have established that his Rally for the Republic party used a number of illegal devices to raise money with its influence at City Hall. Attempts to question Chirac on the affair have foundered because of his presidential immunity.
.

Gestern Matrix (zum ersten Mal) auf RTL gesehen. Was um Himmels willen ist an diesem Film interessant bzw. spannend? Warum wurde/wird er selbst von ernstznehmenden Zeitgenossen als "gut", "toll", "ein Muss", etc. empfohlen?