[VomsVomaMew]

Here is the statement issued, I'm not trying to take it out of context, but I want to see what people think of the statement.

Mr Hussein Elham said freedom of speech should not be used as a cover for attacking moral and religious values. Do you agree/disagree. Why?

Here is the back story of the quote.
The Iranian government has intervened to try to stop the screening of a film in the Netherlands about the Koran. The Iranians say that the film, by the Dutch member of parliament Geert Wilders, is offensive. The Iranian justice minister, Gholam Hussein Elham, wrote to his Dutch counterpart, Ernst Hirsch Ballin, calling for a ban.

[wsbizwsa]

I'm not sure what you are asking but here's a reply anyway...

Anyone should be allowed to say whatever they want within common sense. For example, people should not be allowed to discuss plotting the massacre of a high school. But they should be allowed to discuss why they hate that school. Their discussion may be full of hate, misinformation and ignorance but they should still be allowed to speak their minds.

I'll await the arrival of another member who can state my idea much more eloquently.

[Terinalo]

I guess it depends on how individuals draw a distinction between "attacking" and "questioning"....

[Maymayfor]

I think freedom of speech includes the freedom to attack moral and religious values. To verbally "attack" (or as Chris puts it, question, which to me sounds very similar) moral and religious values seems like a very normal thing to do in a world where a lot of people with different values are trying to live together. If you want to find values you both can live with, you're going to have to question / argue / talk about eachother's current values....

In case of Geert Wilders' film, I'm curious to see it and I firmly believe it should not be banned. I'm sure Iran doesn't really believe so either - I'm guessing the country has its fair share of anti-Western messages as well.