Freedom of Speech.

[Moose]

It's all right, he cast LIFE 2 before hand. That'll teach those pesky Jews!

[Surreptishus]

erm.. right click, Save As?

[Shadowstrider]

Possibly off-topic, but does anyone see the irony of this whole scenario?

 

Cartoon depicts muslims as violent. In order to prove that they aren't violent, muslims incite violence... maybe its just my feeble human brain. I don't think all muslims are violent, but causing a riot to prove you aren't kind of, you know... contradicts the statement.

[Dark Moth]

Yup, very ironic. It doesn't surprise me, to be honest with you. Many of those involved have no respect for other faiths, yet become outraged when someone insults their own. And to prove their point, they burn a Danish mission and ransack a Christian community. Also, for an update, a Catholic priest was shot dead in Turkey by a young Muslim who was chanting "Allah Achbar" (god is great).

[Walsingham]

....by a young Muslim who was chanting "Allah Achbar" (god is great).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yah, well you know how embarassing it is when you forget the rest of the words.

[213374U]

Are you deliberately trying to encourage me, or are you just obtuse ?

Given that I'm at 2/3 warnings already, I'll try to be soft.

 

No, I'm not trying to encourage you. I just thought I'd remind you that some people are still trying to keep the thread on track, and would appreciate it if you didn't give the mods an excuse to lock it. If you can't take part in a serious debate, you can go sit in a corner, and watch your betters do it until you get the basics. Alternatively, you could go find a thread more suited to your tastes and capacities.

 

Mind you, I do my fair share of spam and random imagery posting, but never before derailment is already underway. There is a thin line between humor and nonsense as well. Also, I try to keep a healthy balance between trolling and constructive posting.

 

 

I'm not trying to get in the way of a perfectly good barney (although I will, ye wee devils). But isn't this really the point? If one cartoon is bad, what about Moose's?

Well, I don't know about you, but I don't step into other people's conversations with random nonsensical comments. That's not so much a matter of inadequacy of content as much as it is a disruption of debate. Moose's cartoon isn't especially offensive to me, it's just out of place. Add to that that it was exactly him who gave the coup de grace to the thread this one originated from, and you'll understand what I'm talking about.

 

Funny that you would bring this up. Self-censorship is one of the points we discussed in the debate about free speech in tarna's boards. Or was it elsewhere? Can't remember...

[Surreptishus]

Cartoon depicts muslims as violent.  In order to prove that they aren't violent, muslims incite violence... maybe its just my feeble human brain.  I don't think all muslims are violent, but causing a riot to prove you aren't kind of, you know... contradicts the statement.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Was that the case? I thought they incited the violence becuase they were offended.

 

EDIT: Ok i've lost the plot regarding this thread are we talkiing about freedom of speech on general or are we really talking about the cartoons?

 

The UK government recently failed to pass a law banning incitement to religious hatred, this is important in the context of freedom of speech and I was wondering what people's thoughts are?

 

This is an interesting take on events : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4685886.stm

Edited February 6, 2006 by Surreptishus

[SteveThaiBinh]

The biggest issue, I feel, is not the current brou-haha; it is the lack of protests from the Islamic community after extremists commited unspeakable acts of violence (9/11 and 7/7) in their names.

Plenty of ordinary Muslims and community leaders spoke out against these attacks. As to why they didn't organise big public demonstrations, I would speculate:

 

1. Fear of attracting racist violence from non-Muslims. I sympathise with the instinct to keep your head down in situations like that.

2. Fear of a moderate protest being hijacked by extremists, just as we saw last week.

In order to prove that they aren't violent, muslims incite violence...

The peaceful demonstrators didn't incite or support the violence, and the extremists don't want to prove Islam isn't violent. The extremists want Islam to be violent, to fight and destroy the non-Islamic world.

 

Islam preaches great loyalty to and solidarity with the umma, the worldwide community of Muslims. I guess it's initially uncomfortable for moderate Muslims to side with the secular/Christian against fellow Muslims, or at least people who profess to be Muslims. Yet this has to happen, if the 'Class of Civilisations' is to be averted. I don't think these cartoons have made that easier for Muslims who are predisposed to side against extremism.

 

The UK's incitement to religious hatred laws would, in their initial form, probably have made publishing these cartoons illegal. Thankfully, that draft appears to be in the bin now.

[Shadowstrider]

As wonderful as that is, Steve, that doesn't disprove what I said.

 

Cartoon portrays muslims as violent. Outraged, many muslims protest violently.

[julianw]

A good question to ask the protesters would be what Muhammad would have done? You think he would even get slightly agitated at a few caricatures of himself? He even forgave those who slaughtered his friends and followers and tried to murder him. Any violent protester who even utters his name on the streets is a complete disgrace to the Prophet and his teachings of love, peace and forgiveness.

Edited February 7, 2006 by julianw

[SteveThaiBinh]

many muslims protest violently.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And many more do not, and many work to avoid violence, even standing in front of the extremists and trying to defuse the situation. Should these people be dismissed simply because the media has to focus on the extremists? Are we saying that it's understandable if a non-Muslim viewer comes away from this with the impression that 'Muslims are violent', and if so, is that the fault of the extremists, the moderate Muslims, the media or the viewer?

[Moose]

The UK's incitement to religious hatred laws would, in their initial form, probably have made publishing these cartoons illegal.  Thankfully, that draft appears to be in the bin now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually it got through, on the third reading. Would have got through on the second reading if Blair showed up to vote.

[metadigital]

I found it quite ironic that the Rolling Stones had their lyrics censored on US tv for a second time. The first time was on the Ed Sulivan Show forty years ago. The second time was yesterday.

 

Who said the US has free speech? "

[SteveThaiBinh]

Actually it got through, on the third reading. Would have got through on the second reading if Blair showed up to vote.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As far as I know, it got through, but in the form amended by the House of Lords removing the idea that someone can be prosecuted if they use 'reckless' language, even without intent to incite hatred. If they got the original through, let me know, I shall write to my MP.

I found it quite ironic that the Rolling Stones had their lyrics censored on US tv for a second time. The first time was on the Ed Sulivan Show forty years ago. The second time was yesterday.

 

Link?

[metadigital]

It's in today's papers (I'm watching BBC News 24 and they just reviewed the papers), so I'll have a google ...

[Dark Moth]

A good question to ask the protesters would be what Muhammad would have done? You think he would even get slightly agitated at a few caricatures of himself? He even forgave those who slaughtered his friends and followers and tried to murder him. Any violent protester who even utters his name on the streets is a complete disgrace to the Prophet and his teachings of love, peace and forgiveness.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I won't say much to that, only that I recommend you read The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and The Life of Muhammad: A translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, a biography of Muhammad written by a pious Muslim. You may be unpleasantly surprised.

Edited February 7, 2006 by Mothman

[Shadowstrider]

many muslims protest violently.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And many more do not, and many work to avoid violence, even standing in front of the extremists and trying to defuse the situation. Should these people be dismissed simply because the media has to focus on the extremists? Are we saying that it's understandable if a non-Muslim viewer comes away from this with the impression that 'Muslims are violent', and if so, is that the fault of the extremists, the moderate Muslims, the media or the viewer?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Once again, I'm waiting for the part where you point out that it isn't ironic.

 

To prove muslims aren't violent, muslims protest violently. Doesn't matter how many did compared to how many didn't. Irony is still present.

 

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that this is completely lost on you, since some muslims don't see the irony, either.

 

*Shrugs.*

 

You can squeel your "but there were other people too!" lines from the rooftop all day long. Meanwhile, some muslims are out acting violently to prove they aren't violent.

 

Edit: I'll let you get away with casually brushing aside the fact that people are dying over a cartoon, in favor of spewing out liberal catch-alls. Its not that I didn't notice, just that I am not going to debate with you on the merits of your position.

Edited February 7, 2006 by Shadowstrider

[metadigital]

Mercury News

 

Monday, February 06, 2006

REVIEW: ROLLING STONES (CENSORED) AT SUPER BOWL

 

Brad Kava, 08:22 AM in Brad Kava, Celebrities, Concerts, Music

 

Four decades after they were censored on the nationally televised Ed Sullivan show, the Rolling Stones got silenced twice during their much-touted 12-minute Super Bowl Halftime show.Stones_1

 

During "Start Me Up," the racy last line about a woman so hot, "you make a dead man come," was silenced.

 

During "Rough Justice," when Jagger asks with an already tamed double entendre if he's a rooster, or "just one of your ****" the ****, a perfectly acceptable term for rooster, is blanked out.

 

This wasn't like Ed Sullivan, when the band changed the lyrics to "Let's Spend the Night Togther," to "Let's Spend Some Time Together," but just as distasteful for rockers.

 

I haven't seen anyone else complain about this, but I'm surprised. These lyrics have been played countless times on radio and Microsoft ads and weddings and sports games, with no complaints or offense to young ears. It's not like anyone but the most ardent fans can hear the words anyway, but obviously the NFL is sensitive after its Janet Jackson fiasco, which frankly was no more offensive than your basic National Geographic photo.

 

Less surprising is that when singer Mick Jagger reaches for a drink of what appears to be bottled water, the camera quickly skips away so you never see what he actually drinks. No surprise in this heavily alcohol sponsored event. You wouldn't want anyone to think these bad boys drink water, would you?

 

Do you think the Stones had to be censored during the game?

 

RE

Edit: he he! Looks like Obsidian is prudish, too!

Edited February 7, 2006 by metadigital

[SteveThaiBinh]

Once again, I'm waiting for the part where you point out that it isn't ironic.

 

To prove muslims aren't violent, muslims protest violently.  Doesn't matter how many did compared to how many didn't.  Irony is still present.

If the violent protesters were protesting to prove that Muslims aren't violent, there would have been irony. But they weren't, as I wrote above. You've misunderstood why both moderates and extremists were protesting.

 

I'd suggest you reflect on the implications of perceiving irony where you claim to, but I certainly don't intend to debate with you if you insult me.

[SteveThaiBinh]

I haven't seen anyone else complain about this, but I'm surprised. These lyrics have been played countless times on radio and Microsoft ads and weddings and sports games, with no complaints or offense to young ears.

Was the Microsoft ad (was that really 11 years ago? ) the full unexpurgated version? It doesn't seem likely, but I honestly can't remember.

Do you think the Stones had to be censored during the game?

Interesting, but I guess it's consistent with the outcome of the Janet Jackson thing, i.e. that mainstream channels in primetime slots can't show anything sexually explicit. The NFL want the glamour of the rock star without the excess and amorality that goes along with it, but companies, organisation and politicians have always done the same. If they had allowed the lyrics to be broadcast, there would have been complaints, the whole policy would be up in the air again and confusion would reign.

 

It makes sense that they were censored. Presumably they knew and agreed to it?

[metadigital]

The 100,000 complaints about JJ's boob (pun intended) came from the same telephone exchange (an arch Neo-con organisation whose name escapes me for the moment).

[tarna]

Okay guys, let's cut it with the cartoons. Much as they irritate me personally, they also serve as an example of what this very thread is speaking to. Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press. Had they shown up in any of thread, I'd have nuked them, but here they serve a point. Let's not have any more though. The example has been given. Any more would just be rude.

 

Those of you that took offense to these Christian/Jew based cartoons now probably have an idea of the offense the Muslims are dealing with. The difference being that some of them chose violence as a response.

 

Let's stick to words here and let's keep it civil.

[Meow!]

Okay guys, let's cut it with the cartoons.

 

 

BEHEAD THOSE THAT INSULT CARTOON POSTING! :angry:

 

------

2 hours later...

 

*Beheads tarna for killing cartoon posts*

Edited February 7, 2006 by Meow!

[Volourn]

"Those of you that took offense to these Christian/Jew based cartoons"

 

Doesn't bother me. Heck, someone can make a cartoon making Kanadians look like Nazis and it wouldn't bother me at all.

 

But, don't worry, no cartoons from me as links ar evil, anyways.

[julianw]

I won't say much to that, only that I recommend you read The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and The Life of Muhammad: A translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, a biography of Muhammad written by a pious Muslim.  You may be unpleasantly surprised. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I could check it out sometime though I am preoccupied with another book on Islam at the moment. It's really sad how underappreciated Islam is in the western world and yet certain portions of the Islamic community continues to segregate themselves from the rest of the world and sinks further and further into fundamentalism, making it even more difficult for people to discover the beauty and loftiness behind this wonderful religion.