Freedom of Speech.

[Cantousent]

The point is that laws change. So, my position leaves "questionable" or "offensive" material out of the mix. I mean, you guys still haven't gotten it through your heads that I'm championing freedom of speech. What I say is that I find the material objectionable, but that "objectionable" is not sufficient to censor the speech.

 

Essentially, I've said, from the very first post I made in the first Freedom of Speech thread, that freedom of speech trumps most considerations. That includes intentionally offensive references to religious leaders.

 

EDIT: I was going to PM this, but I might as well post it in this thread. I was never terribly upset about the Jesus picture, Lonewolf. I thought it was *ugh* oh so bad, but I figured you were just making a joke. Like Muslims, Christians must be willing to pick and choose battles. We can't get angry at every offense or we'll merely provide ammunition to folks who already dislike or hate us.

Edited February 3, 2006 by Eldar

[Stewdawg24]

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}>

 

In your example of the Black Virgin Mary let me ask you a few questions....How many Catholics or Christians took to the streets threatnening to kill the artist? How many armed men with hoods over their heads surrounded the museum?

Did Catholics and Christians threaten to kidnap various relatives of the artist?.....The answer is simple....none.

[Jediphile]

In your example of the Black Virgin Mary let me ask you a few questions....How many Catholics or Christians took to the streets threatnening to kill the artist?  How many armed men with hoods over their heads surrounded the museum?

Did Catholics and Christians threaten to kidnap various relatives of the artist?.....The answer is simple....none.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, big difference between *expressing* disgust and outrage and *demanding* the execution of the responsible parties and apologies from the national leaders of the countries they happen to come from...

[Stewdawg24]

Catholics are consistently portrayed in a negative or "joking" light in the media. They have been the whipping boy for years now and in most cases deservedly so, but you don't see them taking to the streets, burning people in effigy, or threatening violence against those responsible for the satire.

 

What I find funny is how the Muslim community has squandered most of the politcal capital it had amassed. I believe that from an American point of view most of Europe had been somewhat sympathetic to the Muslim Community until now. With this episode I believe many people in the EU nations are re-thinking their views of the Muslim Community. It's sad that this rather vocal part of their community is influencing how the world view's Muslims in general.

[Colrom]

I'm confused about the positions some folks are taking.

 

There are many options:

 

Are you for/against violence against _______?

 

Are you for/against threats of violence against ______?

 

Are you for/against ridicule of _______?

 

Are you for/against free speech regarding _______?

 

By the way, I was glad to see an acknowledgement of the possibility of laws regarding what is said about the Danish Queen in Denmark. There are similar laws in other countries.

 

Regarding threats of violence and violence - we are living through difficult times - which may get more difficult before they get better.

 

Quite a few in the East and the West seem to be riled up and eager for other peoples blood.

 

Those who foster hatred and violence are wrong.

 

Here are some more you can and should be outraged by:

 

Ann Coulter said "We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice

Stevens' creme brulee," recently.

 

Pat Robinson said, "You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination," referring to the American policy since the Presidency of Gerald Ford against assassination of foreign leaders, "but if he [Chavez] thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."

 

"We have the ability to take him out," Robertson continued, "and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

 

Whatever you say about the origins of violence I am inclined to just look the piles of dead bodies parties have to their name (kill rings on their barrels as it were) when I judge whether people have murderous intentions.

 

Christ said, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," in the context of an outraged mob. In this case I see two mobs and think that Christ's advice would be good for both.

 

(edited next to last paragraph)

Edited February 4, 2006 by Colrom

[~Di]

Colrom, I don't even know what you're rambling on about any more. The more you write, the less sense you make... (I've been accused of that myself!).

 

The near universal agreement from this forum that expressing indignation and insult is okey, but advocating violence, kidnapping, even death, rioting, storming property and sticking guns in people's faces because one is insulted is not okay. In response, you print a whole bunch of insulting statements made by various political whack jobs... statements which, by the way, did not result in rioting, mass advocation of violence and death threat, storming property or sticking guns in people's faces. So the point of reprinting those silly statements was... what?

 

I say again, you cannot convince me nor (in all probability) anyone else in this forum that it's perfectly okay for the Muslim community to response to their perceived insult by advocating violence, making death threats, rioting and sticking guns in people's faces. Nor can you take your religious tenants and force others to abide by them.

 

Now if you can actually stick to why you feel you have the right to impose your religious laws upon others, and why the violence and death threats currently rampaging through various Muslim communities (although certainly not all) around the globe is okay, then please enlighen us as to your views. Otherwise, a post full of cliched sayings and silly quotes having nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand adds nothing to the discussion.

[Meshugger]

The biggest site for the muslim community in Britain have no problem blaming it all on the zionist media. Linky., i mean just look at the headlines.

[Lucius]

That's the biggest muslim community site in the UK? Scary.

[Jediphile]

For some further enlightment on depicting Muhammed in islam, take a look at what BBC says.

[Colrom]

Sorry Di. You seem to think that there are two sides here - a Muslim side and a Danish side - or something like that - I never was good at mind reading - so I could be wrong.

 

I am not on the Muslim radical side.

 

I am not on the Danish anti Muslim radical side.

 

I am on the third side.

 

I hold all hate mongers equally despicable.

 

Since this is an anti Muslim mob my comments are directed primarily to that.

Edited February 4, 2006 by Colrom

[213374U]

The point is that laws change.  So, my position leaves "questionable" or "offensive" material out of the mix.  I mean, you guys still haven't gotten it through your heads that I'm championing freedom of speech.  What I say is that I find the material objectionable, but that "objectionable" is not sufficient to censor the speech.

 

Essentially, I've said, from the very first post I made in the first Freedom of Speech thread, that freedom of speech trumps most considerations.  That includes intentionally offensive references to religious leaders.

Yeah. I said before that the notion of what is "distasteful" is subjective, when you said you considered them so. What I didn't say, even though it's pretty obvious, is that my own stance is also subjective. I was just offering an opposite opinion to yours, not trying to counter it, as I don't think it's possible.

 

The problem I see is that, as ~Di said, our tolerance threshold towards the muslim world seems to exceed by far what we would consider acceptable for pretty much everyone else.

 

Once they stop behaving like barbarians, then maybe we will treat them as equals. Yes, Colrom. There is a very distinct "us" from "them" here. Compare their reaction to ours and tell me it's not true.

[Jediphile]

Hmm, seems the US support the muslims and thus disagree with Europe to stand firmly behind the right to free speech in the press according to CNN (scroll down to the heading "State Department spokesman: publishing cartoons that incite racial or ethic hatreds is 'unacceptable'" about halfway down the page).

[Jediphile]

I am not on the Danish anti Muslim radical side.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Few are. There were rumors of rightwingers organizing a meeting to burn Qurans in Copenhagen thursday, so both the police and protesting muslims turned up to prevent it, only nobody ever showed to carry out the burning...

[213374U]

Hmm, seems the US support the muslims and thus disagree with Europe to stand firmly behind the right to free speech in the press according to CNN (scroll down to the heading "State Department spokesman: publishing cartoons that incite racial or ethic hatreds is 'unacceptable'" about halfway down the page).

That's what we get for sticking our finger in the US' eye at each chance we get.

[Jediphile]

Hmm, seems the US support the muslims and thus disagree with Europe to stand firmly behind the right to free speech in the press according to CNN (scroll down to the heading "State Department spokesman: publishing cartoons that incite racial or ethic hatreds is 'unacceptable'" about halfway down the page).

That's what we get for sticking our finger in the US' eye at each chance we get.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Could be a good way for the US to improve its troubled image in the islamic world.

 

Still, I'd have preferred if the US didn't do so at the expense of the right to free speech. That seems to be a rather high price to pay for better relations...

[~Di]

Sorry Di. You seem to think that there are two sides here - a Muslim side and a Danish side - or something like that - I never was good at mind reading - so I could be wrong.

 

Yes, you are wrong. I am trying to decipher exactly what you are proposing within the small box of this particular topic, which in a nutshell is: Is it okay for people to riot, advocate violence and issue death threats when they feel insulted?

 

I am not on the Muslim radical side.

 

I am not on the Danish anti Muslim radical side.

 

I am on the third side. 

 

I hold all hate mongers equally despicable. 

 

Excellent. This still does not tell me the following:

 

(1.) Do you believe any newspaper has the right to publish material that some segment of society may deem offensive?

 

(2.) If some segment of society deems something printed by a newspaper offensive, does it have the right to riot, advocate violence, issue death threats, etc.?

 

Not once have you given a straight answer to a direct question, not once in this thread. I simply do not know how to make myself any clearer than to ask the two questions above, which can each be answered either yes or no.

 

Since this is an anti Muslim mob my comments are directed primarily to that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

An "anti-Muslim mob." You give yourself away with that comment, actually. Do you sincerely believe that anyone who either believes in freedom of the press is anti-Muslim? To you sincerely believe that anyone who does not support the advocation of violence and issuance of death threats is "anti-Muslim"? If you answer yes to both those questions, then the discussion is quite obviously over, since there clearly is not now nor will there ever be any common ground for which we could ever strive.

[Colrom]

There is an us and a them - but I regret it.

 

We can only change ourselves.

 

We have colonized them and exploited them and restrained their development at every turn over hundreds of years.

 

We have spoked of development and peace but dispensed embargos and violence over hundreds of years.

 

Maybe it is time for a change.

 

I mean the oil is almost all gone now. There are other trade routes to asia.

 

What's the point anymore?

 

Why don't we give them a hand for a change?

 

That's just my view.

 

And since it is my view I am disappointed that the Danes who have a reputation for being decent are being such blowhards.

[Jediphile]

And since it is my view I am disappointed that the Danes who have a reputation for being decent are being such blowhards.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

How so?

[LoneWolf16]

The point is that laws change.  So, my position leaves "questionable" or "offensive" material out of the mix.  I mean, you guys still haven't gotten it through your heads that I'm championing freedom of speech.  What I say is that I find the material objectionable, but that "objectionable" is not sufficient to censor the speech.

 

Essentially, I've said, from the very first post I made in the first Freedom of Speech thread, that freedom of speech trumps most considerations.  That includes intentionally offensive references to religious leaders.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

True, all of it...or I agree, anyway. And those references of an intentionally offensive nature made toward religious leaders? The best ones.

 

EDIT:  I was going to PM this, but I might as well post it in this thread.  I was never terribly upset about the Jesus picture, Lonewolf.  I thought it was *ugh* oh so bad, but I figured you were just making a joke.  Like Muslims, Christians must be willing to pick and choose battles.  We can't get angry at every offense or we'll merely provide ammunition to folks who already dislike or hate us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I found it funny just because of how awful and tactless it was. And yes, I was joking with it. How can you be serious with something like that?

 

I can respect the unwillingness to engage in a fire fight over something so trivial, and yeah, Christians do tend to come under attack quite often here. Oh, and a word of advice for the future; if I do something to upset, just PM me and I'll do what I can to explain myself or to fix the situation, even if that meant deleting the post.

Edited February 4, 2006 by LoneWolf16

[Lucius]

If Colrom at some point snaps out of dreamyland, I'll consider giving him a decent reply if the post is somewhat sensible, but until then... screw you too buddy.

Edited February 4, 2006 by Lucius

[Colrom]

Quote from Di>

 

Excellent. This still does not tell me the following:

 

(1.) Do you believe any newspaper has the right to publish material that some segment of society may deem offensive?

 

(2.) If some segment of society deems something printed by a newspaper offensive, does it have the right to riot, advocate violence, issue death threats, etc.?

 

Not once have you given a straight answer to a direct question, not once in this thread. I simply do not know how to make myself any clearer than to ask the two questions above, which can each be answered either yes or no.

 

Answers:

 

(1) Yes.

 

(2) Yes on riot/protest. No on advocate violence and issue death threats.

 

 

But there is the third side:

 

Do you think it was good for the paper to publish these characatures?

 

My answer is no. I think they were wrong. And they should be told so.

 

 

That is where the stories about the black cow dung Virgin Mary and the scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz who doesn't repeat himself in the movies come in! One is a story about the reaction to another expression which many thought offensive. The other is a story about altering the tone in order not to be offensive.

 

I am sorry if my references seem obscure.

Edited February 4, 2006 by Colrom

[Blank]

Freedom of speech ≠ Freedom to harass or discriminate exteriorly

 

Edit: neither does it condone crime. i.e. laws overrule freedoms. that's the necessary evil of government.

Edited February 4, 2006 by Blank

[213374U]

Freedom of speech ≠ Freedom to harass or discriminate exteriorly

Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

 

Now, to go along with the trend, let me remind you that harassment is a punishable offense by law. The same with discrimination when it applies to serious, tangible stuff, such as job applications. If it's been dismissed by the prosecutor, it's neither harassment nor discrimination.

 

And yeah, discrimination is a terrible thing. Maybe if they stopped segregating themselves, it could go a long way towards easing up frictions.

[Blank]

Freedom of speech ≠ Freedom to harass or discriminate exteriorly

Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

your welcome. somebody had to do it. there isn't much of an arguement either way if you just look at it in simple terms. and in this case, it is black and white like that. it's against the law or it isn't.

[213374U]

Somebody had to do it. there isn't much of an arguement either way if you just look at it in simple terms. and in this case, it is black and white like that. it's against the law or it isn't.

Yeah, OK. I didn't catch your meaning the first time. I thought you were trying to hint that freedom of speech had been abused in this case.

 

I agree with you, then.