BruceVC

Excellent question Op but I can't comment as I still haven't played PoE, I'm getting there ...I'm getting there

I think what Zora is actually alluding to is if someone found a way to directly insult the entire Jewish community in the USA through some kind of " freedom of expression " there would be consequences and people wouldn't just be able to say " its okay, its just freedom of speech". I think the bacon story is just an analogy around the point he is making ? And I agree that there would consequences that would be far reaching than just internet criticism

Sure, just provide me with the links showing art exhibitions that directly insult Christianity and Catholicism and I'll review them with a critical eye

Hate speech is free speech, at least in US. Popular speech doesn't need protection. Dumping bacon on front step of a synagogue would be a hate crime, because you're trespassing on private property. If it's a government building, you can bring in bacon, no matter who it offends. In other words, you can draw swastikas all you want, just not on someone else's property. There is a "fighting words" doctrine, where you personally insult someone, that could be considered a provocation. A public speech though wouldn't come under this, as you're not forced to listen to it. I don't believe anyone's religion should be insulted, but that's a very different question of whether it should be legal or not, and if it is legal police have to protect the person same as everyone else, else they themselves would be engaging in censorship. " Hate speech is free speech at least in the USA"....you right and that is why people like myself despite numerous visits to the USA don't understand this and how it is practically applied But Zora is also right, you could make any point you wanted about Islamic extremism without insulting the entire global Muslim community. So this whole event was an attempt to causes maximum consternation within the Muslim community and therefore get a reaction by a direct attack on there religion WOD so you believe in the freedom of speech but don't support insults on religion, so you therefore condemn this art exhibition right ?

Society already says the art exhibit was tasteless and antagonistic. This is a fringe group. How do you plan on dealing with fringe groups? The idea that everyone is just going to accept something to benefit society as a whole is fairly naive. I expect that stuff out of my 7th graders when we are discussing the 1st and 2nd amendments. Do the majority of society say the exhibition was tasteless? The general consensus seems to be the exhibition was fine as its a part of freedom of speech? But I may be misinterpreting some of the responses in this thread Also aren't all religions based on the premise that if you believe in something then society as a whole will benefit? You don't see me saying that is naive because I would consider that insulting and condescending to people of faith, like you and others on these forums. And I don't believe its naive to think Muslims and the Western world can live together in harmony as long as we respect certain boundaries As far as Fringe groups go there isn't much you can do in the USA because this is seen as freedom of speech but I doubt this exhibition would be allowed in South Africa or many other countries as in our Constitution we believe in freedom of speech but not if it infringes on the dignity of a person....the dignity of person takes precedence over free speech which is why certain words are just not acceptable in public in South Africa. People can lose there jobs for saying them but they won't do jail time

Why is this instance different? I am genuinely curious as to why you think this situation is unique. I'll gladly answer, it should be clear by now that the GG thread is not about serious debate..people just want to defend or attack SJ causes without logic or reason So please don't quote anything I say on that thread because everything people say on that thread needs context That comment I made that you quoted was more to see if people would condemn the fact that Anita couldn't make some speech due to a threat of violence...yet when the GG conference was disrupted by bomb hoax( a threat of violence ) people were outraged. I see this is as inconsistent. But lets not discuss anything GG related outside of that thread, it always leaves a bad taste in my mouth So back to this debate and something more relevant. I never said or suggested that I sympathize with the act of violence perpetuated by Islamic extremists, I said I can understand why Muslims believe that images of the Prophet are offensive..its considered blasphemy to them. So why provoke them with this type of exhibition? I hope you have time to reply because I appreciate your perspective on matters That's a lie Bruce, almost everybody on the GG thread condemned the attack on Sarkeesian, and every reasonable person also condemned the bomb threat against a GG party. There was no inconsistency, and the GG thread has sparked some good debate, when the participants were capable of basic literacy, reason and logic rather than repeating the same disproven point over and over again. Well once again this is something we just don't agree on Nonek and that's fine, its good we have different views. No it is a matter of fact that you're lying Bruce not a different view. Nonek are you really going to tell me you think the GG thread is an example on these forums of intellectual and mature debate ?

Why is this instance different? I am genuinely curious as to why you think this situation is unique. I'll gladly answer, it should be clear by now that the GG thread is not about serious debate..people just want to defend or attack SJ causes without logic or reason So please don't quote anything I say on that thread because everything people say on that thread needs context That comment I made that you quoted was more to see if people would condemn the fact that Anita couldn't make some speech due to a threat of violence...yet when the GG conference was disrupted by bomb hoax( a threat of violence ) people were outraged. I see this is as inconsistent. But lets not discuss anything GG related outside of that thread, it always leaves a bad taste in my mouth So back to this debate and something more relevant. I never said or suggested that I sympathize with the act of violence perpetuated by Islamic extremists, I said I can understand why Muslims believe that images of the Prophet are offensive..its considered blasphemy to them. So why provoke them with this type of exhibition? I hope you have time to reply because I appreciate your perspective on matters That's a lie Bruce, almost everybody on the GG thread condemned the attack on Sarkeesian, and every reasonable person also condemned the bomb threat against a GG party. There was no inconsistency, and the GG thread has sparked some good debate, when the participants were capable of basic literacy, reason and logic rather than repeating the same disproven point over and over again. Well once again this is something we just don't agree on Nonek and that's fine, its good we have different views. But that's not my point really, I agree the majority of Muslims will say "we don't agree with it but we respect the right to have this exhibition ".....to be honest that is the only legal and appropriate response I would expect from people living in countries where this type of exhibition would be allowed, its not like the entire Muslim community in Dallas is going to get guns and run around killing people But its still considered offensive and then you will have a violent response from a fringe element that will manifest itself in different ways in different countries...it will also just add to the " the West doesn't respect our religion " BS and sentiment. And trust me this is real, I hear it all the time on this prominent Radio Talk Show I listen to in South Africa where some Muslim callers constantly attack the West on ideological grounds and still bring up the Iraq invasion as " proof that the West wants to destroy Islam " ....you would think I'm joking but some people really believe this

When you say "stepping over the line" in what context do you mean? All people who commit crimes...Muslims who commit crimes...Europeans who commit crimes? Sorry I'm not clear on your meaning ? Also I'm not suggesting we legislate that people can't print images of the Prophet, we just accept that its not something we do as a society. But I am not saying we make it illegal So in other words if no one was prepared to support the art exhibition then they wouldn't have had it in the first place ?

No you right you can't But we can balance that freedom of speech against consequences can't we? And no I'm not suggesting now every time someone wants to say something they need to go through a formula to determine if someone somewhere around the world will be offended and what the consequences will be ...I am talking about the obvious things, like images of the Prophet and what the reaction we KNOW will occur

Oh I also didn't get it ..now I understand the ridicule I received That is quite funny

It is not up to "us" (a.k.a. society) to decide which art is necessary or worthwhile. Artists can make whatever art they want for their own reasons; it's called freedom of expression. Absolutely they can..and no one is questioning what freedom of expression means But this also doesn't help when we ask questions like " how can we integrate the Muslim community into Western society in a way that works for everyone " if we refuse to at least accept that Muslims consider images of the Prophet fundamentally prohibited ? We don't allow many traditions or aspects of Muslim culture in Western countries if we consider them illegal or contrary to basic human rights, things like forced marriages, honor killings or genital mutilation. We also respect and protect the sexual orientation of people. So its not like in the West we are giving up our culture or way of life because of the Islamization of our countries...we aren't and we aren't going to and thats not going to change But come on... we can reasonable and not support images of the Prophet in some art exhibition which IMO was just done to insight the Muslim community ?

Why is this instance different? I am genuinely curious as to why you think this situation is unique. I'll gladly answer, it should be clear by now that the GG thread is not about serious debate..people just want to defend or attack SJ causes without logic or reason So please don't quote anything I say on that thread because everything people say on that thread needs context That comment I made that you quoted was more to see if people would condemn the fact that Anita couldn't make some speech due to a threat of violence...yet when the GG conference was disrupted by bomb hoax( a threat of violence ) people were outraged. I see this is as inconsistent. But lets not discuss anything GG related outside of that thread, it always leaves a bad taste in my mouth So back to this debate and something more relevant. I never said or suggested that I sympathize with the act of violence perpetuated by Islamic extremists, I said I can understand why Muslims believe that images of the Prophet are offensive..its considered blasphemy to them. So why provoke them with this type of exhibition? I hope you have time to reply because I appreciate your perspective on matters

Yes but it don't mean that topic is not worth to talk nevertheless Remember the definition of Trolling on these forums for some people is when someone makes a point you don't like, agree with or just don't understand I am not Trolling, I stand by my points on this topic. I may be wrong thats not the same thing as trolling I took it more that you try get people give their reactions, opinions, objections, etc. for the topic without actually giving your view point for the topic. In other words fishing reactions, which is something that is at least past considered as trolling. Trolling isn't inherently bad, even though it meaning and how people react towards it is changed quite lot in past two decades, as now internet troll seems to mean criminal, people that are offensive towards other members of forum/social media/etc.. Internet vocabulary expands and evolves so fast that it is nearly impossible to keep up with it. Okay maybe, I never thought of Trolling like that before. I see Trolling as a negative thing where people make a point just to get a emotional reaction and have no intention of really debating the issue And in this case I have stated my own opinion but I am still interested in what others have to say

No we don't have the two sides balanced I don't think there is a single person on these forums who doesn't think that Boko Haram is a reprehensible and anachronistic organisation that deserves to be annihilated , I started the original thread condemning them and there actions http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66161-boko-haram-and-the-kidnpping-of-the-school-girls/?hl=%2Bboko+%2Bharam But I fail to see why we can't be aware of things that basically offend the entire global Muslim community, and this is no excuse for acts of violence, and also unequivocally condemn the likes of Boko Haram? I don't see the connection between the two? Well the connection is that we are not cutting heads of muslims in our western society because of some Boko Haram muslim representatives Why would we as Westerners want to chop-off the heads of random Muslims? We operate as a civil, intelligent and rational society in most cases....we are nothing like the people in ISIS, Al-Shabaab and other extremist groups. So once again I fail to see the point of highlighting the actions of Boko Haram and then suggesting " well we aren't acting like that as Westerners" Of course we aren't, we hold ourselves to a higher standard

I can't be sure in this particular case, because I haven't seen any actual art from this exhibition, but usually in these cases people just try make things that they think people will find offensive and some better ones try to put them in form of political satire or social commentary, but as general these kind exhibitions try to cause outrage in some subsection of people who exhibition organizers don't like. Because by doing so they get press time for their opinions and world view that they wouldn't get otherwise. http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2015/05/02/sold-out-may-3rd-muhammad-art-exhibit-and-contest-in-garland-texas-photos/ Here are some of the art exhibitions, take a look and tell me what message they are trying to express in your opinion?

Yes but it don't mean that topic is not worth to talk nevertheless Remember the definition of Trolling on these forums for some people is when someone makes a point you don't like, agree with or just don't understand I am not Trolling, I stand by my points on this topic. I may be wrong thats not the same thing as trolling

No we don't have the two sides balanced I don't think there is a single person on these forums who doesn't think that Boko Haram is a reprehensible and anachronistic organisation that deserves to be annihilated , I started the original thread condemning them and there actions http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/66161-boko-haram-and-the-kidnpping-of-the-school-girls/?hl=%2Bboko+%2Bharam But I fail to see why we can't be aware of things that basically offend the entire global Muslim community, and this is no excuse for acts of violence, and also unequivocally condemn the likes of Boko Haram? I don't see the connection between the two?

For the vast majority of Muslims they don't " want " to be offended They are offended because there religion tells them that images of the Prophet are not allowed and they therefore believe this. So is it really that hard for us as Westerners to at least sympathize with this view and try to understand it. Its not rational, it comes from a religious perspective and since when are religions rational? Well, islam tells them that stoning is right punishment. Do you support stoning to please them? Or do you at least sympathize with it? If something is religion dogma it doesnt mean i have to sympathize with it correct? Yes Stoning is still used in some countries, I think it is an appalling and inhuman way to implement the death penalty There are other way to kill people that are much more humane so I don't support or sympathize with it But this is not the same thing as me saying "I respect the wishes of Muslims when they ask I don't create images of the Prophet " ?

Fair enough, but does it not concern you that there will be people ( we have already seen the 2 gunmen ) who will not go to the gallery and or demonstrate peacefully but will attempt to inflict maximum carnage on anyone they feel is associated with the gallery (so basically targeting any Westerner )? And they wouldn't have acted like this if it wasn't because of the art exhibition ? So do you feel the organizers of the art show have no reason to feel any sense of responsibility about what happens after this?

For the vast majority of Muslims they don't " want " to be offended They are offended because there religion tells them that images of the Prophet are not allowed and they therefore believe this. So is it really that hard for us as Westerners to at least sympathize with this view and try to understand it. Its not rational, it comes from a religious perspective and since when are religions rational?

Point behind this kind events is to get some idiots riled so much that they attack/try attack the show (when you do such shows enough of times you eventually find someone/s that are just crazy and idiotic enough to do such attack), because that make public see all the people belonging to same broad group as attackers to be dangers to society that need to be watched and whose rights can be violated. Should such controversial shows be legal, yes. Should they such idiots (meaning people that purposefully try get violent reaction from people so that they can claim that those belonging same group (religious, racial, national, sports fan club, etc.) of people who attacked them should not have same rights as them) that do them get protection of law, yes. But in my opinion press should do better job not making such people some heroes of free speech, because they really aren't such, as they usually think that only right sort of people should have right to free speech and their whole act is to get public opinion to same wave length. But anyway to your question it is worth for the organizers to have this kind event, because they convey their message better than anything else, as most other cases their message would go unheard as public would mainly ignore it as idiotic and something that is against their values, but when they make events that get threatened by attacks or better attacked their message will get in news and it becomes easier to public accepts it and usually it don't put them at risk as most of the risk goes to those who protect them from the possible attack/attack. This is an interesting post but I need to ask you a question " What is the message the art exhibition is trying to get across " in your opinion ?

A valid point, though not very helpful to the question. Let's put it a different way, should the protection of free speech be without limits? So should anyone who decides to provoke a group that is easy to antagonize receive protection? Jaded has summarized my point in this post and previous ones he made about this particular issue For me we know people have a legal right to this art exhibition and they have a right to demand and expect police protection, in this case they also invested in private security But at what cost? Is the right to free speech worth this because ultimately what does this exhibition even mean? We know there are such things as Islamic extremists but we also know only a small percentage of Muslims are extremists. Yet I can guarantee you most Muslims will find these pictures offensive as pictures of the Prophet are not allowed, and these pictures are not just normal pictures they are extreme So Wilder's and his associates have there day and from the safety of Texas they can insult Islam through a satirical perspective but what are the consequences? Now in some conservative and benighted country like Yemen or Afghanistan some Westerner gets his head chopped off because he was American or European and its directly because of these extremists acting because of the perceived insult towards Islam from " Westerners" So I ask again " is this type of art exhibition worth it " ? Not sure what are you still asking. Many people here already replied to you. Lets rephrase your question. 'Is it worth protect freedom of speech if someone will kill people because of it?' reply and we will see I don't believe it is worth someone else getting killed because I exercise my freedom of speech So for example Wilders and the organizers of the exhibition probably won't get killed because of this but the reaction and targets of the outcry will be in countries outside the USA...as normally happens And if someone does get beheaded who has nothing to do with this art exhibition how would that make you feel? Would you still believe this is a price we as Westerners pay for free speech? And I'm not suggesting now we can't criticize Islam, I am only talking about this particular event and its consequences

A valid point, though not very helpful to the question. Let's put it a different way, should the protection of free speech be without limits? So should anyone who decides to provoke a group that is easy to antagonize receive protection? Jaded has summarized my point in this post and previous ones he made about this particular issue For me we know people have a legal right to this art exhibition and they have a right to demand and expect police protection, in this case they also invested in private security But at what cost? Is the right to free speech worth this because ultimately what does this exhibition even mean? We know there are such things as Islamic extremists but we also know only a small percentage of Muslims are extremists. Yet I can guarantee you most Muslims will find these pictures offensive as pictures of the Prophet are not allowed, and these pictures are not just normal pictures they are extreme So Wilder's and his associates have there day and from the safety of Texas they can insult Islam through a satirical perspective but what are the consequences? Now in some conservative and benighted country like Yemen or Afghanistan some Westerner gets his head chopped off because he was American or European and its directly because of these extremists acting because of the perceived insult towards Islam from " Westerners" So I ask again " is this type of art exhibition worth it " ?

Not sure how this relevant to my point in this thread but I believe abortion in certain cases is fine and the decision should be the women's choice

I don't disagree with everything you are saying, maybe this is a case of people getting tired of the double-standards to how Christians are treated in certain places and are now saying " we know this exhibition may get attacked but we don't care because this is about freedom of expression and in our culture this is sacrosanct" Sure I can understand that..I still do not think this was best the platform to make this kind of point but I can understand it