Freedom of Speech.

[Lucius]

Off topic: I was reading a bit on Tarnas forum, and I'm wondering who is this Yrkoon fellar? I can't remember one of that name here on Obsidian. (His posts pisses me off quite a bit, but I've managed to refrain from signing up and flame )

[Jediphile]

Jediphile, I am sorry but publishers like any other business have NO social conscience. I also take exception with your assertion that being personally responsible means that no-one else has any impact on your behaviour.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Even if I were to agree with that (and that's a big "if") and we assume that publishers release publications purely on basis of sensationalism that keeps them in business economically, they are still subjected to the laws of what you can and cannot write, and if they continue to publish illegal material, they won't be publishers for long. This is not a major problem in western societies, though there are those who claim it is otherwise. Besides, if people buy their crap, doesn't that say more about the people than it does about the author or the publisher?

 

I agree that one should not be able to weasel out of taking responsiblity by pointing at some book, game or film. But I also think that the publishers of that book game or film bear varying responsibility.

 

Linked to the above point, I might remind the assembly that the film the Clockwork Orange was censored by its creator, not by UK govt. for fear it would inspire violence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That then begs the questions of how and when? There have been outcries over GTA3 San Andreas inspiring all sorts of violence due to its graphic contents. I find that argument just as ludicrous as when Pat Pulling accused D&D of the death of her son and similar. It's just nonsense and blameshifting by people who think that everybody but themselves are responsible for everything that goes wrong in their lives.

 

As for Clockwork Orange, that is the choice of the creator. Oliver Stone's Natural Born Killer was also accused of inspiring violent behavior, but I would agree more with Stone that if people commit violence after seeing the film, then it's because there's already something wrong with them in the first place.

[Atreides]

Off topic: I was reading a bit on Tarnas forum, and I'm wondering who is this Yrkoon fellar? I can't remember one of that name here on Obsidian. (His posts pisses me off quite a bit, but I've managed to refrain from signing up and flame )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

AHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHA

[~Di]

Off topic: I was reading a bit on Tarnas forum, and I'm wondering who is this Yrkoon fellar? I can't remember one of that name here on Obsidian. (His posts pisses me off quite a bit, but I've managed to refrain from signing up and flame )

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yrkoon is, and has been for years, the unofficial apologist for all things Muslim. Pissing people off is his joy and his passion.

 

That said, I know Tarna would love to have you sign up at his new forum, not merely to flame, but to share your views. Consider joining us!

[~Di]

On what grounds are we restricting the freedom of speech of the convicted criminal?  Is it because of who he is (and what he's done), or because of what he has written?

 

If it's because of who he is, then there's no way the rules can be applied consistently, but also no reason why they need to be.  Criminals are a special case, and society has the right to restrict the freedoms of those who break its rules and endanger society.

 

If it is the content that we are objecting to, then it depends on the criteria the Prison Service is using to censor material (whether by withholding it for experts only, or deleting passages from a manuscript).  I'd speculate that they're only using existing laws that apply to everyone, laws against incitement to murder, libel, indecency or (I think  ) causing harm or distress to relatives.  In that case, it should be possible to be consistent, and the same laws that govern what a prisoner can publish apply to what a newspaper or anyone else can publish.  There's a big difference in who is applying the law, though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I can't speak to UK law, but here in the USA there are always limits to our constitutionally-protected freedoms. I won't bore y'all by delineating them all, but basically one person's freedom ends when exercising it will infringe upon the freedom of another.

 

In the USA, convicted felons and other prisoners basically lose most of their constitutional freedoms. They lose their freedom of movement, their ability to vote, their ability to profit from their crimes, etc. Their protection from physical abuse and harm, however, is still in tact. Prisoners are treated much as are children in many respects, with the state taking the role of parent.

 

I don't believe that any law or freedom can be applied consistently without regard to the overall context of individuals involved, nor do I believe it should be. Clearly children cannot be given the freedom to make decisions for themselves that they are not old enough to make, so said freedoms cannot be consistently applied to them. Prisoners have, under most legal interpretations globally, lost the right to exercise their own freedoms when they infringed on the freedoms of others with their crimes.

 

There are probably more examples, but y'all get the gist.

Edited February 10, 2006 by ~Di

[Volourn]

"not merely to flame"

 

Yeah; but that's half the fun espicially with regards to Yrkoon. :D

 

 

"Clearly children cannot be given the freedom to make decisions for themselves that they are not old enough to make, so said freedoms cannot be consistently applied to them."

 

Don't get me started here.

 

Chidlren aren't allowed to vote or drink or smoke because they are incapable of making such decisions supposedly; but llo and behold one committs murder and they're super mature enough to be proesecuted like the adult dogs that they are.

Edited February 10, 2006 by Volourn

[Cantousent]

I would actually be quite happy to have you join us at tarna's Lucius. We have another long thread there concerning this issue, although mine centered more on the cartoons and less on speech in general.

 

Anyhow, I'd love to have you come and flame me there. You can get away with a lot more flame there than here.

 

For all my talk, I'm usually not one for extended flame baiting, and so we need folks who're willing to jump in the fray.

 

As far as Vol's latest post. hahahahaha. "...the adult dogs that they are." Manohmanohman. That made my morning.

[Lucius]

Thanks guys (and gals), I'll definitely consider it... and not just to flame, I promise. :D

 

Btw. have a good weekend all, I'm already drunk!

[Walsingham]

Jediphile: I am not entirely certain we are really at crossed purposes. I am insisting on personal responsibilty, but I am also looking at every element of an act. To draw an analogy, if a house is burned down, and I supplied the gasoline, and you lit the matches then we are BOTH implicated in the event.

 

Speaking of which, I don't see that any personal comments are relevant to this discussion.

[metadigital]

Nope. He might write something that brings harm onto the families of the victims, like, I dunno, a human cookbook?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And who would publish that? You seem to have the impression that censorship needs to be applied in case this person expresses something harmful, but the truth is that to be heard he needs to appeal to the media or a publisher, and they usually have ethical standards. Even if they do not, they would think twice about publishing something that will tarnish their image or get them into trouble with the law. Therefore I find that censoring this man's right to free speech does not present much of a problem where it concerns his victims or their families.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Horsefeathers.

 

If there is money to be made then someone will publish it. There are murderers on death row who are millionaires because of their book sales (and the greed of the unscrupulous in publishing and other areas).

 

How is publishing a book / autobiography part of free speech for prisoner. Sure, let them write whatever they want, but there is no automatic "right" for them to have access to society, including a voice.

 

I wonder if you would have the same point of view if your sister, aunt, daughter, cousin was raped / assaulted / murdered and the criminal only received the maximum penalty under law and was due out of prison in ten years? (Not every society has capital punishment.)

 

There is quite the philosophical debate about whether the presumption of innocence and the impact that the protection of the rights of criminals has on the rights of victims. I know I would rather be a killer than a victim in today's society ...

 

Nope, all rights suspended subject to censure and censorship. Rights can be earned back during rehabilitation (if possible).

[Jediphile]

Jediphile: I am not entirely certain we are really at crossed purposes. I am insisting on personal responsibilty, but I am also looking at every element of an act. To draw an analogy, if a house is burned down, and I supplied the gasoline, and you lit the matches then we are BOTH implicated in the event.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, I would agree with that. A point that I have not made regarding letting an imprisoned man publish a book is that his thoughts might serve to shed light on the subject in the public forum and provoke discussion that can benefit society at large. While that will certainly not always be the case, I would not wish the possibility of it thrown out due to resentment over what this person has done in the past. Others might learn from his mistakes, after all, and that can be a valuable resource.

 

Speaking of which, I don't see that any personal comments are relevant to this discussion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You lost me...

[Surreptishus]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4700414.stm

 

HA! take that free speech!

[Dark Moth]

*sigh*

[Volourn]

I have to agree with Muslims that Isrealis are the biggest bigots of them all..

 

Proof for all to see (scroll down a bit):

 

http://www.boomka.org/

Edited February 15, 2006 by Volourn

[Judge Hades]

That is funny. LOL.

[kumquatq3]

Hades should start a website where every day, online, he draws a picture of Muhammad and then burns it.

 

With this he would accomplish 2 personal goals:

 

1. Cause World War 3. As no one would dare venture into the heart of Iowa to stop him, countries would just lash out at each other.

 

2. Gets to play with fire for a living

[Judge Hades]

I rather draw a picture of Jesus and burn that.

[kumquatq3]

I rather draw a picture of Jesus and burn that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Pfff, been there, done that. You have to be "edgy" Doomy.

[moreKOTORplz]

burn jesus and encure the wrath of million fat woman

[Jediphile]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4700414.stm

 

HA! take that free speech!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's just sad

 

So much for free speech in Sweden, I guess... and my opinion of that country's current administration.

[Karimi]

The Muslims don't take this thing as a joke, it's a personal insult to any Muslim (I'd compare it to a person drawing stuff about your parents in the paper but it's sort of different). In Islam there are strict rules about drawing the prophet, and to draw him is blasphemous. You people in the west have been desensitized to this after years of becoming more and more secular.

 

Also, there's ALOT of hypocrisy in the freedom of speech business :

 

1- Marlon Brando got lots of bs from the Jews after the Larry King interview.

2- In France.Belgium, and a group of european countries its illegal to critisize the Holocaust and doubt its authenticity in public.

3- Passion of the Christ was critisized by the Jews.

4- Banning the muslim Hijab in France, so much for freedom of expression.

[kumquatq3]

1- Marlon Brando got lots of bs from the Jews after the Larry King interview.

 

3- Passion of the Christ was critisized by the Jews.

 

um........that's not hyopcrisy, that's Freedom of Speech in action

[Karimi]

1- Marlon Brando got lots of bs from the Jews after the Larry King interview.

 

3- Passion of the Christ was critisized by the Jews.

 

um........that's not hyopcrisy, that's Freedom of Speech in action

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I meant that theres hypocrisy that people asked him for an apology, and that PoC was not shown in cinemas because of the complaints. To me they can complain but not to the extent that he has to apologize for it , or to the extent that they can't show a movie.

[Lucius]

The Muslims don't take this thing as a joke, it's a personal insult to any Muslim (I'd compare it to a person drawing stuff about your parents in the paper but it's sort of different). In Islam there are strict rules about drawing the prophet, and to draw him is blasphemous. You people in the west have been desensitized to this after years of becoming more and more secular.

 

Also, there's ALOT of hypocrisy in the freedom of speech business :

 

1- Marlon Brando got lots of bs from the Jews after the Larry King interview.

2- In France.Belgium, and a group of european countries its illegal to critisize the Holocaust and doubt its authenticity in public.

3- Passion of the Christ was critisized by the Jews.

4- Banning the muslim Hijab in France, so much for freedom of expression.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah well none of those points you listed there applies to the country that originally posted the cartoons, namely Denmark. And everyone is free to have their case tried in court... oh wait, it has been tried already and was thrown out.

 

Again; Islamic laws doesn't apply here, and frankly I'm quite happy with Europeans becoming more and more secular.

[Karimi]

Yeah well none of those points you listed there applies to the country that originally posted the cartoons, namely Denmark. And everyone is free to have their case tried in court... oh wait, it has been tried already and was thrown out.

 

Again; Islamic laws doesn't apply here, and frankly I'm quite happy with Europeans becoming more and more secular.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I wasn't talking about Denmark, just freedom of speech in general. I didn't say I don't think Europeans should be secular. I'm just saying what they did was disrespectful to other cultures.

 

As for Denmark they have the right to put those cartoons up, just as I have the right to say all Americans are 'Whatever'. Doesn't mean I should. Doesn't make it right.