Freedom of Speech.

[Lucius]

The other thread was not off topic.

 

Colrom

There is altogether too much disgusting Islamophobic ridicule and misinformation in this thread - much of it orchestrated by Lucius.

 

Whether it was legal or illegal it was harmful and wrong.

 

Past wrongs do not justify it.

 

Because Muslims protest is not good reason to further ridicule them.

 

There is no "they" there is only "us".

Again, we have the right to ridicule these "protesters" (if you can call them that, flag burning, gun wielding maniacs). The very same people who makes death threats, which you conveniently failed to comment on.

How is your boycott going, by the way?

Edited February 3, 2006 by Lucius

[Commissar]

The other thread was not off topic.

 

Colrom

There is altogether too much disgusting Islamophobic ridicule and misinformation in this thread - much of it orchestrated by Lucius.

 

Whether it was legal or illegal it was harmful and wrong.

 

Past wrongs do not justify it.

 

Because Muslims protest is not good reason to further ridicule them.

 

There is no "they" there is only "us".

Again, we have the right to ridicule these "protesters" (if you can call them that, flag burning, gun wielding maniacs). The very same people who makes death threats, which you conveniently failed to comment on.

How is your boycott going, by the way?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The real irony here is that like less than a month ago you were harping on me for an us vs. them attitude.

[Lucius]

I'm only talking about those on the streets with AK's calling for our destruction (or deaths, at any rate), we have plenty of moderate muslims back home who isn't anything near those you see "protesting".

Edited February 3, 2006 by Lucius

[213374U]

Uh... since the other thread was locked, I'm going to address a few points, in a civilized, non-inflammatory way. As much as I'm able to, anyway.

 

 

I didn't pondering anything, dammit.  I've said, from the first to the last that I freedom of speech must win the day.  There's never been pondering.  Hell, I've seen Jesus parodied in a snickers commercial and I never said that the person in question (thanks, Lonewolf) should be reprimanded on the board or denied the right to post.

The fact that we are even mentioning freedom of speech speaks for itself. And while you might think that freedom of speech wins hands down, that doesn't mean everyone (and I'm not talking about muslims here) agrees.

 

 

Still, I will contend that it is offensive to ridicule and deride someone's beleifs in such a manner.  Using Jesus in a parody of a snickers comercial is in poor taste.

Because you don't like it? That's within the realm of political correctness now. Not saying anything that might be considered deriding other people's beliefs. Not even admitting to thinking it. Sorry, I already said there is nothing untouchable for me when it comes to ideas or beliefs, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, as you haven't supplied a single argument to support the argument that I shouldn't ridicule other people's beliefs, or that my own beliefs shouldn't be ridiculed.

 

The thing is, if somebody for whatever reason ridicules my beliefs, I examine them to see if there's any semblance of sense in what they are saying. If there's not, I just disregard the attack. People need to grow a thicker skin.

 

 

A survey would probably show the majority of Europeans find the material offensive to some degree.

I could say the exact opposite, and the statement wouldn't lose a grain of validity. There's no way we could know, unless such survey was carried out.

 

 

If you think about it, however, my argument is stronger for accepting that the images are offensive.  Because I argue that Freedom of Speech rules even when the content is offensive.  There must be something more involved.  The laws regarding pornography restrict it, but it is still possible to access porn.  So, by your standard, we could just get enough people to agree it's offensive to have the Cartoon in question censored.  That's not enough.

Eh? Somewhere back there I lost you, it seems. I wasn't promoting or even suggesting censorship. And there's no way in hell you could compare these cartoons to pornography, as pornography may have an adverse effect on children, as some psychologists argue. Or that's the official excuse for restricting it, anyway. Arguing the same for these cartoons is nonsense.

 

 

There is altogether too much disgusting Islamophobic ridicule and misinformation in this thread - much of it orchestrated by Lucius.

I eagerly await your enlightened comments on the matter - if you can put aside the trolling for a second, that is.

 

 

There is no "they" there is only "us".

Reality disagrees with you.

[Jediphile]

The other thread was not off topic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Agreed. I'm appalled that it was closed, and I've PM'ed Fionavar on it. To close a topic on the right to free speech has rather unpleasant connotations IMHO.

 

 

Still, I will contend that it is offensive to ridicule and deride someone's beleifs in such a manner.  Using Jesus in a parody of a snickers comercial is in poor taste.

 

Taste is subjective, which makes the point moot. What you might find to be poor taste may not meet with agreement from others, and even if it did, the focus of the distaste would still have to be published in some manner before a debate on whether it is poor taste can take place.

[213374U]

Agreed. I'm appalled that it was closed, and I've PM'ed Fionavar on it. To close a topic on the right to free speech has rather unpleasant connotations IMHO.

I am so not going to comment on that.

[Cantousent]

So there is no line and we can say or do whatever we please, you numbered swine? There is a line of decency. That line might change as society changes, but it exists none-the-less. Furthermore, a Muslim can argue that the cartoon in question is harmful to children. To whit, their children. This shifting sands and the jihad against political correctness is a load of crap. Just because some people take political correctness too far doesn't mean that we should not treat each other with respect or that decency is a meaningless term.

 

Do the offended Muslims need to grow a thicker skin? Undoubtedly so. Maybe they're getting a little idea of what it's like to have someone burn your flag in protest. Nevertheless, their need for a thicker skin does not, somehow, make the cartoon a tasteful way to express the point. Certainly, the fact that many's the jackass believes it to be true does not make it so.

 

[since my numbered friend is playing nice, the cosmic balance demands I take his place]

[Volourn]

People who threaten violence over cartoons are scumbags. Religion is irrelevant here.

[Jediphile]

So there is no line and we can say or do whatever we please, you numbered swine?  There is a line of decency.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, there is a line of the law. The cartoons were reported to the police, who decided that there was no legal basis for pursuing the case in the courts. That's it legally - case closed. They had their day in court, so to speak, since a ruling was made.

 

That line might change as society changes, but it exists none-the-less.  Furthermore, a Muslim can argue that the cartoon in question is harmful to children.  To whit, their children.  This shifting sands and the jihad against political correctness is a load of crap.  Just because some people take political correctness too far doesn't mean that we should not treat each other with respect or that decency is a meaningless term.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, but that's why we have laws that dictate what can and cannot be said, and those laws have already spoken in this case.

 

Do the offended Muslims need to grow a thicker skin?  Undoubtedly so.  Maybe they're getting a little idea of what it's like to have someone burn your flag in protest.  Nevertheless, their need for a thicker skin does not, somehow, make the cartoon a tasteful way to express the point.  Certainly, the fact that many's the jackass believes it to be true does not make it so.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, and I'm one of several people who did not like the caricatures. I thought they were deliberately provocative and therefore very impolite. However, people do have the right to behave like jerks if they choose, and newspapers are not an exception there. So I will support their right to print the caricatures even if I didn't like them myself.

[Cantousent]

"I thought they were deliberately provocative and therefore very impolite."

 

The irony. You have just recaptured, Jediphile, my stance from the very begining.

[213374U]

So there is no line and we can say or do whatever we please, you numbered swine?  There is a line of decency.  That line might change as society changes, but it exists none-the-less.  Furthermore, a Muslim can argue that the cartoon in question is harmful to children.  To whit, their children.  This shifting sands and the jihad against political correctness is a load of crap.  Just because some people take political correctness too far doesn't mean that we should not treat each other with respect or that decency is a meaningless term.

Yep. Say whatever I please. I believe that's freedom of speech. The "doing" part of your statement is an obvious trap I'm not going to fall for, heh.

 

If you limit freedom of speech based on any notion of what is right and what is wrong, it doesn't matter if you do it under the name of censorship, political correctness, or decency. And see? We are debating freedom of speech.

 

The chance of listening to things that may offend us, from time to time, is the burden we must accept in exchange for freedom of speech. Obviously, it's not boundless. Like any other freedom it can be abused to bring harm to others. That's the point where regular justice takes over. But arguing that saying things that may offend other people is actually harming them is somewhat demagogic.

 

 

Nevertheless, their need for a thicker skin does not, somehow, make the cartoon a tasteful way to express the point.  Certainly, the fact that many's the jackass believes it to be true does not make it so.

Again, you are using subjective terms. It's distasteful to you, but it does not look that way to me.

 

And what so many jackasses believe isn't really my business, but certainly reducing the extent of freedom of speech isn't going to improve on their situation in the least.

[Colrom]

I'll say this for freedom, it gives us a chance to see what choices people make when the options are wide open.

 

I suppose the Danish paper could have solicited cartoons ridiculing the Queen in some way that would draw outrage (I assume that is possible).

 

Or they could have made fun of Jews in an outrageous way (Jews being previously and even these days a popular target for ridicule).

 

But they didn't.

 

They chose to mock and taunt Muslims instead.

 

And in making that choice they revealed the focus of their hostility while they sought to rally others to join in public ridicule of their target.

 

No one is really suggesting that these artists be thrown in jail.

 

What is being suggested is that they and all those who rally to their side be shown the disregard that they deserve.

 

My boycot is doing fine.

 

In America we have achieved some wisdom from our own experience and the experience of our European friends - that even when speech is free it is not without consequences.

[Cantousent]

Yeah, but we do limit freedom of speech. The question is, where do we draw the line?

[213374U]

I suppose the Danish paper could have solicited cartoons ridiculing the Queen in some way that would draw outrage (I assume that is possible).

I don't know about Danish papers, but over here we have that daily.

 

 

Or they could have made fun of Jews in an outrageous way (Jews being previously and even these days a popular target for ridicule).

 

But they didn't.

 

They chose to mock and taunt Muslims instead.

Apparently you haven't bothered to read enough to know that this whole business started because somebody actually couldn't find any artist that wanted to depict Muhammad, for an unrelated publication. And in that case, they weren't going to be caricatures. This wasn't a calculated attack at the muslim community for no apparent reason.

 

 

And in making that choice they revealed the focus of their hostility while they sought to rally others to join in public ridicule of their target.

Yeah, playing martyr is always a good trick.

 

 

Yeah, but we do limit freedom of speech.  The question is, where do we draw the line?

Where harm is actually caused. As I said, jurisprudence has those limits clearly laid out.

[Bulgarian Jedi]

Freedom of speech is a knife with two bades. (a metaphor)

 

Beenig free to express your poinion is a human right. However, because of this same right many lies and extreme beliefs, which are usualy not very difficult to spread, appear. Movements like dangerous nationalism, racial and religious racism, and other prejudices are good example. Education plays a huge role in destinduishing truth from lie.

 

Maybe, there won't be a govermental limitings of freedom of speech, but one should know well what to listen to and what to believe. Dangerous propaganda should be limited, though one can view these as an example of what not to believe and do.

[Jediphile]

I'll say this for freedom, it gives us a chance to see what choices people make when the options are wide open.

 

I suppose the Danish paper could have solicited cartoons ridiculing the Queen in some way that would draw outrage (I assume that is possible).

 

Or they could have made fun of Jews in an outrageous way (Jews being previously and even these days a popular target for ridicule).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

These things happen in newspapers all the time. It invariably draws fire from offended parties now and then, but mostly in the form of an expression that some do find it to be distasteful, not because they want censorship (which is not going to happen anyway).

 

But they didn't.

 

They chose to mock and taunt Muslims instead.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Royalty, other religions and even politicians have been mocked in the newspaper carticatures for decades already. What makes islam so special that it should receive special consideration?

 

And in making that choice they revealed the focus of their hostility while they sought to rally others to join in public ridicule of their target.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nonsense. Their intent was to speak out against the self-censorship that many artists impose upon themselves purely out of fear of reprisals from islamic fundamentalists and extremists. Whatever any thinks, islam is an important and relevant topic to discuss in the public today, and that applies to carticatures in newspapers as well. I even think that the most offensive picture (the one with a bomb for a turban) has been published before, and probably many other similar drawings of Muhammed have been as well.

 

No one is really suggesting that these artists be thrown in jail.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, the extremists merely demand that the artists be executed...

 

What is being suggested is that they and all those who rally to their side be shown the disregard that they deserve.

 

My boycot is doing fine.

 

In America we have achieved some wisdom from our own experience and the experience of our European friends - that even when speech is free it is not without consequences.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The caricatures have already been reported to the police and the prosecutor threw out the case.

[Jediphile]

Yeah, but we do limit freedom of speech.  The question is, where do we draw the line?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

To what the law permits. And the legal process has deemed that there was no transgression here.

[Lucius]

And Colrom have obviously not been paying attention, there have actually been demands from fundamentalist groups that the artist be punished by the government.

 

And our politicians, the queen, the prime minister are all at various times victim of our satire and black humor, that's just how it is here. If ya can't live with that, then it's time to move.

[~Di]

I'll say this for freedom, it gives us a chance to see what choices people make when the options are wide open.

 

I suppose the Danish paper could have solicited cartoons ridiculing the Queen in some way that would draw outrage (I assume that is possible).

 

Or they could have made fun of Jews in an outrageous way (Jews being previously and even these days a popular target for ridicule).

 

But they didn't.

 

Really? You have studied these publications scrupulously, and know for a fact that they have never, ever printed any cartoons that ridiculed their Queen, Jews, or any other country, religion or group?

 

They chose to mock and taunt Muslims instead.

 

More than likely they chose to mock and taunt Muslims in addition to all the other folks they have mocked and taunted with their prior political cartoons. But lemme ask you this: If you see cartoons caricaturing America, Americans, or America's president (as you no doubt see in just about every newspaper around the globe, including Muslim media), or see film of a group of Muslims burning American flags, burning mocking effigy's of American presidents, carrying signs screaming "Death to America" and other obvious insults, do you believe that Americans, having clearly been "mocked and taunted", now have the right to universally advocate violence against all Muslims in retaliation for the insult? Does American have the right to demand no nation, no group, no individual has a right to insult it, lest it suffer the wrath of violence and death? Or is such protection from insult reserved only for Muslims, hmm? You can see where I'm going with this, can you not? The double-standard is a trap all too many of us stumble into, particularly when we are personally offended.

 

And in making that choice they revealed the focus of their hostility while they sought to rally others to join in public ridicule of their target.

 

No one is really suggesting that these artists be thrown in jail.

 

What is being suggested is that they and all those who rally to their side be shown the disregard that they deserve.

 

My boycot is doing fine.

 

So, how are the death threats going? The storming of embassies, the militant groups threatening Danes (and Europeans in general if Danes can't be found) at gunpoint around the globe? Doing well, are they? Showing those folks the disregard they deserve, are they?

 

So what kind of disregard do those who celebrate the misfortune of others, who mock, ricidule, protest and call for death of nations deserve?

 

In America we have achieved some wisdom from our own experience and the experience of our European friends - that even when speech is free it is not without consequences.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

In America, we also realize that to assure our own freedoms we must protect the freedom of others, including our enemies. When the consequence of free speech is death, ala Salmon Rushie and the current screams for violence and death, then the speech is no longer free, is it? If you want to boycott Danish cheese, fine with me. If you want to advocate violence against anyone who buys Danish cheese, or who make Danish cheese, they you are no longer the protector of freedom, you are the destroyer of it.

 

I've tried to express myself clearly and respectfully, with examples we might both we able to identify with. If I failed, eh, not the first time.

[LoneWolf16]

I didn't pondering anything, dammit.  I've said, from the first to the last that I freedom of speech must win the day.  There's never been pondering.  Hell, I've seen Jesus parodied in a snickers commercial and I never said that the person in question (thanks, Lonewolf) should be reprimanded on the board or denied the right to post.

 

Heh, yeah, sorry about that one. Hell, I thought it was amusing. My apologies for having a dissenting opinion when it comes to what is and isn't humorous.

 

People who threaten violence over cartoons are scumbags. Religion is irrelevant here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I......I agree with Volourn? That sounds so very, very wrong...

 

 

As has been said...making threats and other such things about a cartoon which depicts your religion doing the exact same thing sort of proves a point. And, Ladies and Gentlemen, that point is simply this: People, of all races and creeds, need to remove the massive stick sheathed in barb wire from their asses.

 

Here's a question...does the great Muslim prophet even care? Doesn't he have a whole host of other, more pressing matters to attend to? Like, for instance, fighting Christianity and Judaism for control of the world? Something tells me that he just doesn't care...

 

No one is really suggesting that these artists be thrown in jail.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, the extremists merely demand that the artists be executed...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Owned.

 

Also points out just how damned violent these types can become over a simple drawing. This does not help their case, and if anything, will prompt more papers to run the image (and others) if only as an act of defiance.

[Colrom]

Well then Lucius, I sense an opportunity for you.

 

The Queen has not been a recent target. At least not enough of a target to draw notice.

 

This is your opportunity to draw attention to this deficiency in obnoxiousness.

 

Find something to say or do about the Queen that will draw a mob of Danes looking to have your head!

 

Go to it!

 

-----

 

As an aside, does anyone remember the 1998 episode of the black Virgin Mary done in cow dung art and displayed at the Brooklyn Museum of Modern Art?

 

There was quite an outrage about that.

 

Mayor Guiliani was quite vocal - especially since it was done at a Museum using public funding.

 

-----

 

How big is Denmark anyway? I mean is it possible that a modest mob in Jakarta could have a bigger draw then the entire population of Denmark?

 

Is it bigger than Kansas.

 

The Strawman in The Wizard of Oz (the book) said that if he only had a brain he might be able to understand why anyone would want to live in Kansas. They didn't put that in the movie. I wonder why?

 

Edited February 3, 2006 by Colrom

[Colrom]

I don't advocate or condone violence or incitement to violence.

 

Please read my sig.

 

It is completely serious and sincere.

 

You can also determine my values from my previous posts on all sorts of topics.

 

[Jediphile]

Well then Lucius, I sense an opportunity for you.

 

The Queen has not been a recent target. At least not enough of a target to draw notice.

 

This is your opportunity to draw attention to this deficiency in obnoxiousness.

 

Find something to say or do about the Queen that will draw a mob of Danes looking to have your head!

 

Go to it!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

He'd need to find something to criticize her for first, which would be difficult, since she doesn't have fundamentalist views.

 

Even if he succeeded, it would scarcely make angry danes gather in mobs in the streets - the danes are far too mellow and complacent for that. As a danish poet once said, "there was to be a revolution in Denmark... but then it rained..."

 

Some people might express disgust, but most really wouldn't care.

 

How big is Denmark anyway? I mean is it possible that a modest mob in Jakarta could have a bigger draw then the entire population of Denmark?

 

Is it bigger than Kansas.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Denmark is really small, both in size and population. I think the figures on Wikipedia are fairly accurate.

[Lucius]

Well then Lucius, I sense an opportunity for you.

 

The Queen has not been a recent target. At least not enough of a target to draw notice.

 

This is your opportunity to draw attention to this deficiency in obnoxiousness.

 

Find something to say or do about the Queen that will draw a mob of Danes looking to have your head!

 

Go to it!

 

-----

 

As an aside, does anyone remember the 1998 episode of the black Virgin Mary done in cow dung art and displayed at the Brooklyn Museum of Modern Art?

 

There was quite an outrage about that.

 

Mayor Guiliani was quite vocal - especially since it was done at a Museum using public funding.

 

-----

 

How big is Denmark anyway? I mean is it possible that a modest mob in Jakarta could have a bigger draw then the entire population of Denmark?

 

Is it bigger than Kansas.

 

The Strawman in The Wizard of Oz (the book) said that if he only had a brain he might be able to understand why anyone would want to live in Kansas. They didn't put that in the movie. I wonder why? 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're starting to loose it, does all the post lined against you here knock you out of it? What were you trying to say about Denmark, you didn't make any sense.

 

And I'm not going to write or draw anything about the Queen since I quite simply don't want to. And there are limits within the law regarding the Queen, but I haven't heard of any incident being tried in court, ever.

Also, I'm pretty sure noone would be wanting my head or trying to hold me up at gunpoint as those primitive brutes are doing to western Europeans in Gaza.

 

PS. The royal family have huge public support, not many have any issues with them. Many, however, have issues with fundamentalist islam.

Edited February 3, 2006 by Lucius

[julianw]

In    Iraq, the leading Shiite cleric denounced the drawings first published in a Danish newspaper in September, one of which depicted the prophet wearing a turban shaped as a bomb. But the cleric also suggested militant Muslims were partly to blame for distorting the image of Islam.

in remarks posted on his Web site, al-Sistani referred to "misguided and oppressive" segments of the Muslim community whose actions "projected a distorted and dark image of the faith of justice, love and brotherhood."

 

At least not all Muslims decided to chase down tourists in hotels.

Edited February 3, 2006 by julianw