LittleBig Planet Delayed after Quran passage found in sound track.

[Gorgon]

In any case, I have been doing some thinking myself, and it seems to me that speech is either free or it isn't. In the same train of thought as 'being a little bit pregnant', it's an 'either-or' proposition.

 

Now of course laws also dictate what it is permissible to communicate, you can't threaten anyone with death and expect no consequences. I refer to what is permissible within the law.

 

Having established those boundaries many people still like to use the maxim that 'free speech isn't a license to slander'.

I can't help but disagree. It seems to me that that is exactly what free speech also is, again within the limits of the law, and of course you can slander within the law, just chose your adjectives carefully.

 

The maxim is subjective, whereas the principle of free speech within the law is completely definable. It means among other things that we have to contend with anything from Neo Nazis and racists, to gross exaggerations and political bias.

 

Free speech isn't pretty, those that think it should be have gotten the definition wrong.

[jaguars4ever]

I was thinking about this some more and decided that if we want Muslim fundamentalists to compromise by not getting offended, then we free speech fundamentalists may also have to compromise.

D00d - don't you know the Muslim Fundies are everywhere? Better watch what you say or this thread will get suicide closed!

[Nick_i_am]

Did anyone else get offended when Civ4 sang the whole of the Lords Prayer (in Swahili) in its intro?

 

Because I sure as crap was!

 

Yeah!

[Nightshape]

Sony want LBP to appeal to EVERYONE! That mean's it's got to be extremely politically correct, I MEAN FFS! They're sack people!!!

[Aram]

What we need here is a Muslim Nietzsche.

Suicide bombing for no reason?

[Blank]

CtrlAltDel's take.

[Tigranes]

There are two kinds of webcomics that have a lot of texts. The first kind have so much of substance to say, that they absolutely require that text. The second kind are made by red, slightly rusted buckets. Let's just say ol' Tim needs a repaint.

 

Anyway, let's step back here. Uh, what the hell is exactly wrong with some Muslims believing that the presence of Qu'ran passages in secular music is an offense, if that is what is dictated by their holy texts? I mean, it's not like they're outlawing sex or killing homosexuals or destroying our chocolate reserves. What they want done with their holy text is their business, and if that seems strange or anally retentive to us, that's our problem, not theirs. I think we're going way too bigot here, implicitly.

 

edit: 3000! I shall celebrate with a new line in my sig.

[Strix]

What they want done with their holy text is their business, and if that seems strange or anally retentive to us, that's our problem, not theirs.

 

What about the fact that the musician who composed the music was also Muslim and had no qualms including the text?

[Tigranes]

Diabat

[Kaftan Barlast]

Anyway, let's step back here. Uh, what the hell is exactly wrong with some Muslims believing that the presence of Qu'ran passages in secular music is an offense, if that is what is dictated by their holy texts? I mean, it's not like they're outlawing sex or killing homosexuals or destroying our chocolate reserves. What they want done with their holy text is their business, and if that seems strange or anally retentive to us, that's our problem, not theirs. I think we're going way too bigot here, implicitly.

 

 

They have the right to be offended, but they dont have the right to try and pressure everyone else into submission because of it. Its just bad, intolerant and highly uncivilised behavior.

[Walsingham]

What we need here is a Muslim Nietzsche.

Suicide bombing for no reason?

 

Bombing GOD for no reason.

[Tigranes]

They have the right to be offended, but they dont have the right to try and pressure everyone else into submission because of it. Its just bad, intolerant and highly uncivilised behavior.

 

Just like, uh, the Cathedral incident?

 

It's their cathedral and their holy text.

[random n00b]

Anyway, let's step back here. Uh, what the hell is exactly wrong with some Muslims believing that the presence of Qu'ran passages in secular music is an offense, if that is what is dictated by their holy texts? I mean, it's not like they're outlawing sex or killing homosexuals or destroying our chocolate reserves. What they want done with their holy text is their business, and if that seems strange or anally retentive to us, that's our problem, not theirs.

I'm not even going to enter into the adequacy or legitimacy of rules written in ancient religious texts. I'm just going to point out how this is another example of the defining trait of fundies - the belief that everyone must think as they do and abide by their rules, or in this case, the rules laid out by their holy book. If they were to become offended by me having some pork chops, would that make me a bigot? I have no problems with them not using Qur'an passages in music or whatever, but why should their religious rules apply to everyone, everywhere, for all time? Please.

 

This whole double standard thing regarding fundie sensitivities really sickens me. People need to start growing some balls (sayeth the Internet Tough Guy from the safety of his basement).

[Tigranes]

But uh... as I keep saying, it's the usage of THEIR holy texts. I have no idea what the 'ownership rules' on things like that are or anything (more likely it's public domain), but sensibly speaking, it's their holy text, we're the one going in there and using it.

 

With YOU eating pork or YOU being homosexual or whatever else, sure, I agree with you. But... yeah.

[random n00b]

As you said, it's public domain. The issue is their sense of entitlement over something that's supposed to belong to mankind as a whole and the idea they have somehow a right to dictate what is and what is not legitimate to do with the material just because they happen to belong to a religious sect that follows the principles of said work. Mindboggling really, and rather offensive.

 

But nobody seems to care whether I'm offended, because I'm a non-fundamentalist.

 

The way of the bully.

[Walsingham]

It sounds to me like you're getting offended by them not obeying YOUR rules.

 

EDIT: Basically I'm saying we should, um... hang on... I think I'm channelling John Kennedy again... never fear to compromise, but never compromise out of fear. Essentially, if I had to write a rule for this (and I don't) it would be if we are asked if we'd mind having the song without the Q'uran in it then fine. But as soon as some jackass kills anyone to put pressure on us, then the song can stay the way it is, permanently.

[Tigranes]

Some more info. I won't link the Kotaku one because it's totally biased on the side of Diabat

[Meshugger]

This resembles the whole Mohammed-caricature-story a while back. I remember Yuusha (who is a tolerant compared to those nutcases) claiming that it is an unsigned law, or so to speak, to respect different peoples opinions. When asking him if it selfsensorship is a good thing, then he claimed "yes", since it promotes social harmony.

 

Finally i asked him about the scenario about sun-worshippers, and possibility that they would claim any reference to the sun as a herecy, would he then abide that and remove any reference of the sun on their behalf?

 

He never answered.

 

This latest wave of self-sensorship in society is despicable IMO. I rather live in a society where free speech is encouraged by everyone, than letting the majority silence themselves on the minority's behalf, or even the other way around.

[Gorgon]

What we need here is a Muslim Nietzsche.

Suicide bombing for no reason?

 

Bombing GOD for no reason.

Killing god is a prerequisite for free speech on a very basic level. He's the holy cow that's gotta go first.

[Walsingham]

You're not getting argument from me. If I see God I'm kicking him in the nuts for that disease which makes kids eyelashes turn inside out and scratch themselves blind.

[random n00b]

It sounds to me like you're getting offended by them not obeying YOUR rules.

Oh, most definitely. Specifically, I'm offended by their (oh, how I love making purposefully vague and generalising statements) disrespect of people's right* to think freely. I will always be a fundamentalist of that idea - despite my willingness to discuss its pros and cons. And I'll always be a nutjob when it comes to any degree of mind control, under any guises. Sorry, but I don't think this is a debate you can win (or even not-lose, which is the best that stance can aspire to in the most favorable of circumstances) by clinging to moral relativism, as it doesn't really pertain to morality.

 

*I'm using "right" as I lack a better word to express something that comes as naturally to human beings as breathing, but I'm just not too sure if it could be categorised as a physiological function. Interestingly, it's unenforceable one way or the other, so it's not formally recognised as a "right", either. Heh.

[Strix]

But uh... as I keep saying, it's the usage of THEIR holy texts.

 

So? The Bible and other "holy books" are quoted in games and other media without this uproar.

 

I have no idea what the 'ownership rules' on things like that are or anything (more likely it's public domain)...

 

If it's anything like the Bible you can copyright your translation but the "original" -whatever version that is I don't know- is in the public domain.

 

Also:

Muslims cannot benefit from freedom of expression and religion and then turn around and ask that anytime their sensibilities are offended that the freedom of others be restricted... The free market allows for expression of disfavor by simply not purchasing a game that may be offensive...

 

[Mohammed] defended the rights of his enemies to critique him in any way even if it was offensive to his own Islamic sensibilities or respect for Koranic scripture... To demand that [the game] be withdrawn is predicated on a society which gives theocrats who wish to control speech far more value than the central principle of freedom of expression upon which the very practice and freedom of religion is based.

 

The fact that the music writer is a devout Muslim should highlight that at the core of this issue is not about offending

[Strix]

Just like, uh, the Cathedral incident?

 

I doubt they really could have done anything against the company, but that's not exactly relevant now as, last I heard, they are encouraging games to use it as a setting.

[Walsingham]

Specifically, I'm offended by their disrespect of people's right* to think freely.

 

But you're mind-policing them getting pissed off! You nutloop.

[random n00b]

Specifically, I'm offended by their disrespect of people's right* to think freely.

 

But you're mind-policing them getting pissed off! You nutloop.

Okay, I confess I'm not certain if that comment was made in a completely tongue-in-cheek manner, but I'll bite.

 

I should make it clear that I'm not trying to take away their righteous wrath. They are completely free to throw all the fits they see fit (ahem). That was never the point and if it were, I doubt SCEE would have enacted this abominable self-censorship - hence my comment about the irrelevance of my being offended. The problem comes when they act upon those pet peeves of theirs, or threaten to do so. Then it's no longer a question of mind-policing, but a question of them enforcing (or at least attempting to) said mind-policing by means of terror and death.

 

As I said, not even the idea of universal free thought should be exempt from scrutiny, accepted as it may be. Problem is, a bunch of clowns take the opposite for granted and have no problem with marking for death those who would dare to defile the God-given certainty of their beliefs.