Sadly not all view it as such. Of course, they're the ones who have an idea that they want protected.

is EVER an appropriate response to offense or hurt feelings.

We have a right to believe and practice as we wish, a right to freely speak and a right to freely assemble. There is a right of way to interrupt a peaceable assembly as long as you are not disturbing the peace.

One would not thereafter have a right to criticize.

A right to criticize would not make a good cornerstone right.

What about religious speech that calls for violence? Does that "disturb the peace"? Is that more or less worrisome than someone saying critical things about religion?

of why it should not be a right.

You seem to be saying that someone saying something offensive or insulting is just as bad as calling for someone's murder. Is that correct?

You are correct, I'll never understand that.

a right to speak freely implies the right to criticize, to satirize, to freely mock that which one chooses to mock.

Like John Lennon said in his epic anti-religion song "Imagine if people explained what they meant"

Did I misunderstand you, or do you not understand what being a member of a free society involves?

Us old farts remember Skokie, Il in 1977 when The American Nazi Party decided to stage a march in Skokie, a predominantly Jewish community with a large number of Holocaust survivors.

From Huffington in 2009 noting the opening of the Holocaust Museum:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/remembering-the-nazis-in_b_188739.html

At the time of the proposed march in 1977, Skokie, a northern Chicago suburb, had a population of about 70,000 persons, 40,000 of whom were Jewish. Approximately 5,000 of the Jewish residents were survivors of the Holocaust. The residents of Skokie responded with shock and outrage. They sought a court order enjoining the march on the grounds that it would “incite or promote hatred against persons of Jewish faith or ancestry,” that is was a “deliberate and willful attempt” to inflict severe emotional harm on the Jewish population in Skokie (and especially on the survivors of the Holocaust), and that it would incite an “uncontrollably” violent response and lead to serious “bloodshed.”

The Skokie controversy triggered one of those rare but remarkable moments in American history when citizens throughout the nation vigorously debated the meaning of the United States Constitution. The arguments were often fierce, heartfelt and painful. The American Civil Liberties Union, despite severe criticism and withdrawal of support by many its strongest supporters, represented the First Amendment rights of the Nazi. As a young law professor at the University of Chicago, I had the played a minor role in assisting the ACLU. In the end, the Illinois Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court contributed to the conclusion that Skokie could not enjoin the Nazis from marching.
...
The outcome of the Skokie controversy was one of the truly great victories for the First Amendment in American history. It proved that the rule of law must and can prevail. Because of our profound commitment to the principle of free expression even in the excruciatingly painful circumstances of Skokie more than thirty years ago, we remain today the international symbol of free speech. (Ultimately, a deal was worked out and the Nazis agreed to march in Chicago rather than in Skokie.)

When Nazis were marching in Germany in 1928,
wouldn't it have saved a lot of horrors if said marches had been banned?

I do not think there is a satisfying answer to that question, one way or the other..

Love that Blues Brothers gave a nod to this court decision (which was spot on, btw--back before SCOTUS sucked)

The US constitution guarantees us the right to be jerks. But it doesn't require it.

No one has a lock on the truth and allowing people to run roughshod over someone's beliefs is just as wrong as killing them over their beliefs.

This is a double-edge sword and is only to be used surgically, not welded to mow people down.

You're actually claiming that mocking someone's religious beliefs is just as bad as murder?

Really?

It was, for reference:

"allowing people to run roughshod over someone's beliefs is just as wrong as killing them over their beliefs" (post #9)

I think murder is worse than insulting their beliefs. You seem to think they're equally wrong. Is that true or false? Would you care to explain?

with insulting religion up thread.

Advocates of censorship just drive me batty!

Are you fucking serious, no really? Attacking someone's beliefs is just as bad as murdering them? That's fucking nuts.

What makes what Trump did different is he wants to BAN people from the US based on their religion. That's what's totally unacceptable and unconstitutional to boot.

If our Fundies had their way the police would be arresting everyone they claim to be heretics to turn over to the church for judgement and a confession followed by a public execution by burning at the stake.

It hasn't done much for humanity. Aside from a few do-gooders like Dorothy Day. I can't see the relevance of it in the modern world.

about people who are offended...

And if so, why?

Does he go out of his way to offend people?

Has he ever been offended himself? It certainly sounds like he was whining when he made that statement.

Completely irrelevant. But fascinating.

Fry's statement isn't a treatise on the appropriateness of offense. Go back and read it again.

Why we need to stand up for the right to insult religion and beliefs

date become stalkers. We should also ban marriage because some married people engage in spousal abuse. Basically we should ban everything because I'm pretty sure somebody somewhere has managed to put whatever it is to some foul use.