Mohammed Descendents Sue

[obyknven]

Fairy tales? There were tons of records of massacres. Women and children were often abducted and used as slaves, while men were just slaughtered. Hell, there are tons of vilages near where I live that carry names derived from the Ottoman onslaught.

Now I don't give a damn generally what happened 500 years ago, but saying the intention of the Ottoman conquerers was about peace and enlightmenent just shows how ignorant of historical facts you are.

The Austrians is natural enemies Ottomans. But you're right.

[Gromnir]

What we need is a good dose of what we've always done best. Simple common sense, rather than grand bull**** theories about government.

What we need is you Brits to reform your defamation laws. If the British courts can punish the publisher of anything controversial that happens to wash up on their shores, speech rights around the world are chilled.

 

am always a little stunned by the manner in which Free Speech is addressed beyond the borders of the US. no matter where you go, most folks seems to approve o' free speech, but...

 

if the speech has the tendency to Offend a religious group...

 

if the speech is insulting to __________...

 

if the speech is unnecessarily harsh...

 

for chrissakes, the only speech that requires protection is the stuff most of us sees as offensive, unnecessary or wrong. the Majority view don't need protection.

 

...

 

ridiculing religious figures in Hustler. nazis having a parade in Skokie. performance artists pi$$ing on the stars and stripes. we protect such speech in spite of fact that we know that virtually everybody will be offended. no doubt our origin as a revolutionary government explains the fervor with which we Americans protect our freedom o' speech. even so, Gromnir is always a little bit surprised when we hear folks from elsewheres argue that free speech is great... so long as it don't offend.

 

*snort*

 

talk 'bout missing the point.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Hiro Protagonist]

It stems from the fact that Christianity and Islam has, for the most part, been at each other's throats for centuries, and when the typical Western mindset thinks about Islam they see Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, and Iran. Which completely ignores the fact that the greatest concentration of Muslims in the world resides in Indonesia, not the Middle East.

 

Correct and perhaps most Westerners (other than local western countries like Australia/NZ) have never heard of Jemaah Islamiyah in Indonesia. If Jemaah Islamiyah had the same tabloid reporting like Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, and Iran than you would also have Indonesia in the spotlight as well.

 

Slightly off topic, I thought the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) in my link had a funny acronym.

[Killian Kalthorne]

At least it didn't start with a G.

[Tigranes]

Gromnir is always a little bit surprised when we hear folks from elsewheres argue that free speech is great... so long as it don't offend.

 

But that is the case in the U.S. too. The bar is just a lot higher (lower?).

[Humodour]

Gromnir is always a little bit surprised when we hear folks from elsewheres argue that free speech is great... so long as it don't offend.

 

But that is the case in the U.S. too. The bar is just a lot higher (lower?).

 

Utilitarianism. Ever heard of it?

[Gromnir]

Gromnir is always a little bit surprised when we hear folks from elsewheres argue that free speech is great... so long as it don't offend.

 

But that is the case in the U.S. too. The bar is just a lot higher (lower?).

 

 

sorry, but no. likelihood that a listener will be offended is NOT considered when free speech is the issue. in fact, as with the aforementioned "ridiculing religious figures in Hustler" example, the Court observed that the more outrageous the insult, the less likely it would be deemed to have offended the First Amendment... don't care about offense to listener unless it is likely to provoke an immediate and violent response... and even then the Court looks at such stuff with a jaundiced eye. is not simple that the bar for a defamation plaintiff is higher in the U.S., but there is a fundamental difference in the manner in which Free Speech issues is reviewed compared to what you seems to believe.

 

there is a category o' unprotected speech in the U.S. identified as "fighting words," and the lay-person could misinterpret so as to believe that it might apply in the present context. am gonna save you some time: Chaplinsky don't apply in the present case.

 

if you is genuine interested, the following is helpful:

 

http://supreme.justia.com/us/315/568/case.html

 

http://supreme.justia.com/us/485/46/index.html

 

http://supreme.justia.com/us/505/377/case.html

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited April 6, 2010 by Gromnir

[Walsingham]

Posit:

 

certain crimes cannot be countenanced as being tackled only once they are committed. They must therefore be prosecuted trhough their disconcerted precursors. Sometimes those precursors are physical like hydrogen peroxide or sulphuric acid. Sometimes those precurors are intangible like political hate speech. This is surely one justification for curtailing free speech?

[Enoch]

But then who decides what is "political hate speech" and what is legitimate political discourse?

 

Anyhow, you're talking about the "fighting words" doctrine, which, as described in the first case Grommy linked, is a legitimate justification for State suppression of the speech. (The "fighting words" in dispute in that case were "damned racketeer" and "damned fascist.")

 

But that doesn't necessarily mean that an after-the-fact private suit for defamation based on those utterances would be proper. The test for whether liability would be permissible is different, and is discussed in Grom's 2nd link. (Here is the parody ad that was the basis of that suit. The Court found no grounds for liability.)

[RPGmasterBoo]

Good thing there aren't a million cartoons that put Christ in a comical light, cos we'd have ourselves a real bloodbath then.

 

Hmm.

[Gromnir]

Good thing there aren't a million cartoons that put Christ in a comical light, cos we'd have ourselves a real bloodbath then.

 

Hmm.

 

is difficult to identify sarcasm in some message board posts.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Humodour]

It stems from the fact that Christianity and Islam has, for the most part, been at each other's throats for centuries, and when the typical Western mindset thinks about Islam they see Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, and Iran. Which completely ignores the fact that the greatest concentration of Muslims in the world resides in Indonesia, not the Middle East.

 

Correct and perhaps most Westerners (other than local western countries like Australia/NZ) have never heard of Jemaah Islamiyah in Indonesia. If Jemaah Islamiyah had the same tabloid reporting like Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, and Iran than you would also have Indonesia in the spotlight as well.

 

Slightly off topic, I thought the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) in my link had a funny acronym.

 

I'm sorry but that's not true (OK, I probably misread your post - I'm drunk). Indonesia is far more democratic and secular than almost any country in the Middle East, and they also make a habit of consistently making terrorist crackdowns. They are a close ally of Australia and not just the government, the people too. They have no patience for extremism.

 

Don't get me wrong, I loathe Jemaah Islamiyah, but so too does the majority of Indonesians and its important that Australians understand that. Heck, the Indonesian government took out one of their leaders (Noordin) in a covert op just this year, and Indonesia's newspapers could do nothing but sing praise for his death.

Edited May 6, 2010 by Krezack

[Walsingham]

But then who decides what is "political hate speech" and what is legitimate political discourse?

 

All legislation is ultimately interpreted by the courts. Personally I feel at the point where we cannot expect the courts to administer fairness and common sense using grey area legislation is the point where we surrender ourselves to draconian black and white law enforcement. As - if you will excuse my being pointedly rude - you have to put up with in the United States; and which is complicit in a culture of aggressive punitive policing. This isn't just my view, but it gets mentioned quite regularly in the House of Lords.

[RPGmasterBoo]

Good thing there aren't a million cartoons that put Christ in a comical light, cos we'd have ourselves a real bloodbath then.

 

Hmm.

 

is difficult to identify sarcasm in some message board posts.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

All I'm saying is that a certain religion can and is regularly ridiculed pretty much without consequences while another reacts violently at the slightest provocation. I'm not actually contesting their violence, I'm contesting the spinelessness with which western politicians and media approach the issue as though it will correct itself on its own.

 

A state's purpose is to protect its citizens first and foremost, not suck up to an aggressive and bullying policy of another religion/state/civilization. Especially in the absurd situation where that state (pick any major EU country) has superior military and economic might and has no need or obligation whatsoever to even consider the view of, in this case - the Islamic world.

 

Eg: If we want to make cartoons of your prophet, we will because its allowed in our society. You can protest of course, but if you threaten death on one of our citizens who acted within the bounds of law, that is tantamount to a declaration of war. Equivalent measures have to be taken, and if the EU grew a spine and reacted properly these sort of things would not happen again. Which was the point all along.

If they, say, stopped all trade with the appropriate countries for an indefinite time, as a punishment for the destruction of valuable Danish goods we'd have a much clearer situation.

[Wrath of Dagon]

But then who decides what is "political hate speech" and what is legitimate political discourse?

 

All legislation is ultimately interpreted by the courts. Personally I feel at the point where we cannot expect the courts to administer fairness and common sense using grey area legislation is the point where we surrender ourselves to draconian black and white law enforcement. As - if you will excuse my being pointedly rude - you have to put up with in the United States; and which is complicit in a culture of aggressive punitive policing. This isn't just my view, but it gets mentioned quite regularly in the House of Lords.

The worry here is that someone in power will claim hate speech for something that is legitimate dissent. Already people get called all kinds of names for objecting to the prevailing PC or criticisizing those in power. It's a pretty short step to having dissent outlawed completely, and we're not that many activist judges away from that happening, so it's a legitimate fear. You could probably draw up very narrow legislation where the threat of violence would have to be very explicit, but I think most people would just rather not move in that direction at all. Edited May 6, 2010 by Wrath of Dagon

[RPGmasterBoo]

I don't accept this nonsense about freedom being binary. I don't have the freedom to murder people, but that doesn't take away my freedom to kill in self defence. I suggest that freedom of speech - despite Numbers' very good point about subjectivity - is consistent with banning extreme hate speech.

In an ideal world where every listener is at least as educated as every speaker, hate speech would be pointless, and therefore there would be no need for it to be banned.

 

This is far from being an ideal world, though, and we all recognize the dangers of demagoguery and populism. I'm not arguing for absolute, 100% pure unadulterated free speech. The problem lies, as always, in the proverbial line on the sand.

 

Incorrect, total education does not equate to a lack of hate. Hate is just another perfectly human emotion and is existent regardless of your level of education.

 

The Nazi regime included many extremely educated individuals, and the executors of Nazi policies (down to the common soldier) were not "dumb masses" but individuals of which some might have been duped, but many knew exactly what they were doing and why. To presume them stupid is to fall into the trap of liberalism where everything is blamed on demagoguery and populism, a shallow view at which lies an elitist core that presumes that everyone (but the liberal) is a dumb sheep. Also it conveniently shifts the responsibility from the individual (where it belongs) to a symbol (Hitler in this case) thus allowing many to escape their deserved punishment.

 

According to some university literature I have on psychology, hate is created when we perceive (a subjective moment) that another group/individual is doing us wrong without provocation from us(a loose translation). As any subjective evaluation it can be quite correct, or quite wrong.

There are quite a few individuals and some groups I hate, for reasons that I can support with ample evidence and well grounded reasoning. That is something that no amount of education will change, as it doesnt stem from ignorance but from my (subjective) belief that they have wronged me or my beliefs personally, without any provocation whatsoever from me.

[Hiro Protagonist]

It stems from the fact that Christianity and Islam has, for the most part, been at each other's throats for centuries, and when the typical Western mindset thinks about Islam they see Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, and Iran. Which completely ignores the fact that the greatest concentration of Muslims in the world resides in Indonesia, not the Middle East.

 

Correct and perhaps most Westerners (other than local western countries like Australia/NZ) have never heard of Jemaah Islamiyah in Indonesia. If Jemaah Islamiyah had the same tabloid reporting like Hezbollah, Hamas, Al Qaeda, and Iran than you would also have Indonesia in the spotlight as well.

 

 

I'm sorry but that's not true (OK, I probably misread your post - I'm drunk). Indonesia is far more democratic and secular than almost any country in the Middle East, and they also make a habit of consistently making terrorist crackdowns. They are a close ally of Australia and not just the government, the people too. They have no patience for extremism.

 

Don't get me wrong, I loathe Jemaah Islamiyah, but so too does the majority of Indonesians and its important that Australians understand that. Heck, the Indonesian government took out one of their leaders (Noordin) in a covert op just this year, and Indonesia's newspapers could do nothing but sing praise for his death.

 

Yes, you did misread my post. I've highlighted and italicised the point of my post. I'm not talking about Australia and Indonesia distaste or cracking down on JI. I was stating that 'perhaps if you go to another western country' such as Italy, Greece, etc. would the ordinary person on the street know about JI? Would they know about al-qaeda? Would they know about the conflict between Israel and Palestine which includes Hamas or Hezbollah? I'm willing to bet they probably know about al-qaeda and the Israel/Palestine conflict, but wouldn't know anything about JI.

 

Why is that? Is it because more media attention is placed on things like September 11 and the Israel/Palestine conflict than the Bali Bombing?

 

Last week I read an assignment my gf's neice had to do for uni about Terrorism and she wrote about September 11 and made no mention of the Bali bombing. To be honest I've now realised that fact and at the time, I forgot about Bali and JI.

[Gromnir]

Good thing there aren't a million cartoons that put Christ in a comical light, cos we'd have ourselves a real bloodbath then.

 

Hmm.

 

is difficult to identify sarcasm in some message board posts.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

All I'm saying is that a certain religion can and is regularly ridiculed pretty much without consequences while another reacts violently at the slightest provocation. I'm not actually contesting their violence, I'm contesting the spinelessness with which western politicians and media approach the issue as though it will correct itself on its own.

 

A state's purpose is to protect its citizens first and foremost, not suck up to an aggressive and bullying policy of another religion/state/civilization. Especially in the absurd situation where that state (pick any major EU country) has superior military and economic might and has no need or obligation whatsoever to even consider the view of, in this case - the Islamic world.

 

Eg: If we want to make cartoons of your prophet, we will because its allowed in our society. You can protest of course, but if you threaten death on one of our citizens who acted within the bounds of law, that is tantamount to a declaration of war. Equivalent measures have to be taken, and if the EU grew a spine and reacted properly these sort of things would not happen again. Which was the point all along.

If they, say, stopped all trade with the appropriate countries for an indefinite time, as a punishment for the destruction of valuable Danish goods we'd have a much clearer situation.

 

ok, so you were serious.

 

...

 

am thinking that you is underestimating the number o' times American media "put Christ in a comical light." sure, you not see too often in major newspapers or news services 'cause such outlets is also concerned with keeping their customers, but lampooning Christ is not near as rare as maybe you think.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[213374U]

If they, say, stopped all trade with the appropriate countries for an indefinite time, as a punishment for the destruction of valuable Danish goods we'd have a much clearer situation.

And by "much clearer", you obviously mean "catastrophic" (for us). See how effective the international embargo to Iraq was to force any internal changes, and then take a look at EU economic figures such as current account, balance of trade etc to see how closing markets is the exact opposite of what policy makers believe is wise to do.

 

 

Incorrect, total education does not equate to a lack of hate. Hate is just another perfectly human emotion and is existent regardless of your level of education.

 

The Nazi regime included many extremely educated individuals, and the executors of Nazi policies (down to the common soldier) were not "dumb masses" but individuals of which some might have been duped, but many knew exactly what they were doing and why. To presume them stupid is to fall into the trap of liberalism where everything is blamed on demagoguery and populism, a shallow view at which lies an elitist core that presumes that everyone (but the liberal) is a dumb sheep. Also it conveniently shifts the responsibility from the individual (where it belongs) to a symbol (Hitler in this case) thus allowing many to escape their deserved punishment.

 

According to some university literature I have on psychology, hate is created when we perceive (a subjective moment) that another group/individual is doing us wrong without provocation from us(a loose translation). As any subjective evaluation it can be quite correct, or quite wrong.

There are quite a few individuals and some groups I hate, for reasons that I can support with ample evidence and well grounded reasoning. That is something that no amount of education will change, as it doesnt stem from ignorance but from my (subjective) belief that they have wronged me or my beliefs personally, without any provocation whatsoever from me.

I wasn't as clear as I meant to. The scenario is an ideal world where speaker and listener are both aware of all facts pertaining to the matter being discussed -- thus making deceit impossible. I suppose that one can be perfectly informed and still choose to ignore any amount of information to hold a specific mindset, but that's irrational and, in my experience, while people can be intellectually lazy, intentionally irrational individuals are hard to come by. I wasn't trying to shift blame away from the individual btw, but it's childish, arrogant and quite dangerous to believe oneself to be deception-proof. The psych textbook quote works in my favor as well, since perceptions are formed based first and foremost on available information... and information selection is a widely used technique for mass-opinion manufacture. That may be aberrant, but it's just the way the world works.

 

Nazis, nazis, yeah we love to hate 'em. Whatever would we do without them as an example of all that's wrong with people. However when the responsibility of the German people at large in the crimes of the Third Reich comes up, it's worth take a while to consider the circumstances surrounding their rise (historic, economic and socio-political), and remember that even NSDAP leaders admitted to being dishonest with the people (duh) and manipulating them to earn their support for their agenda. Again, this doesn't exempt individuals from responsibility, but do remember that Hitler got to power with little over 33% of all votes. So you either accept that the people were deceived or sustain that roughly 1/3 of the well-educated and informed German electorate were happy with mass murder. The executors of the regime fall in another category; their hate was a cold, methodical process of desensitisation and dehumanisation to carry out genocidal policies; that's probably as pure as "hate" gets. This is well illustrated if you can read interviews with former camp guards or torturers -- to them the victims are animals and they become progressively unable to relate to their suffering. Interestingly, I have yet to find a single testimony where a rational and solid (not grounded on pseudoscience) explanation is offered as to why the oppressed are objectively inferior or deserving oppression. Those people were punished when caught, though, so there was no evasion of responsibility in that case.

 

Or, that might just be you trying to legitimise a hate you're obviously proud of while at the same time attempting to preserve the highly educated persona you work so hard to present. I'd love to hear your "ample evidence and well grounded reasoning" for mass murder, too. Animosity isn't hate.

Edited May 7, 2010 by 213374U

[RPGmasterBoo]

And by "much clearer", you obviously mean "catastrophic" (for us). See how effective the international embargo to Iraq was to force any internal changes, and then take a look at EU economic figures such as current account, balance of trade etc to see how closing markets is the exact opposite of what policy makers believe is wise to do.

 

I wasn't as clear as I meant to. The scenario is an ideal world where both speaker and listener are both aware of all facts pertaining to the matter being discussed -- thus making deceit impossible...

 

So you either accept that the people were deceived or sustain that roughly 1/3 of the well-educated and informed German electorate were happy with mass murder. The executors of the regime fall in another category; their hate was a cold, methodical process of desensitisation and dehumanisation to carry out genocidal policies; that's probably as pure as "hate" gets. This is well illustrated if you can read interviews with former camp guards or torturers -- to them the victims are animals and they become progressively unable to relate to their suffering. Interestingly, I have yet to find a single testimony where a rational and solid (not grounded on pseudoscience) explanation is offered as to why the oppressed are objectively inferior or deserving oppression. Those people were punished when caught, though, so there was no evasion of responsibility in that case.

 

Or, that might just be you trying to legitimise a hate you're obviously proud of while at the same time attempting to preserve the highly educated persona you work so hard to present. I'd love to hear your "ample evidence and well grounded reasoning" for mass murder, too. Animosity isn't hate.

 

1. There are other viable solutions, I was merely going with the least drastic one.

 

2. Common sense and knowledge are not all encompassing. You completely disregard beliefs and convictions, which irrational or not still drive human beings.

 

3. I quite clearly stated that some were duped, but others knew exactly what was going on, and had nothing against it - even if they didn't want to participate in it themselves. What is so unbelievable about that?

 

4. Hate is not something to be proud of, but I respect anyone making a stand for their beliefs - even if I oppose them. I do not recall making a case for mass murder but feel free to show me if I did. I don't see hate as by necessity leading into total destruction of the object of hate. Rather I'd like to see the threat of those objects removed - which doesn't even have to be through violent means.

 

Feel free to drop the personal attacks and condescending attitude. You don't have to like me but since I'm not disrespecting you - they're quite pointless.

[213374U]

stuff

1. I'd guess that the least drastic one would be to continue to practice our healthy tradition of free speech and pay no mind to the tantrums of a bunch of idiots. Using commercial pressure against those who are in a position to take advantage of our dire energy dependence would be not only quite drastic but also very likely to produce utterly disastrous results.

 

2. Fair enough. It was an ideal world hypothesis, wherein I implied such a thing doesn't correspond to the real world. I believe I made this clear in the post you quoted originally.

 

3. Nothing unbelievable. I'm simply going against your insinuation that large amounts of perfectly normal, happy and well informed people just seem to hate and wish for the extermination of others... just because.

 

4. Then you simply don't hate. It's simple as that -- if you accept that alternatives to force may exist as a solution to whatever you believe you are threatened by, I doubt it qualifies as hate. What is usually regarded as "hate speech" revolves around promoting the infringement of the rights of individuals or groups, and that can only be achieved by force. Force may be needed in an extreme but, PC hogwash notwithstanding, that doesn't make anyone a xenophobic fascist. Perfectly democratic and free countries have had armies whose ultimate purpose is the systematic application of massive force for centuries, now. As I said, animosity isn't hate.

 

 

Feel free to drop the personal attacks and condescending attitude. You don't have to like me but since I'm not disrespecting you - they're quite pointless.

I'm merely attacking the inconsistencies in your tone and attitude. You have been arguing that hate is emotional and irrational and that it "drives people", without offering anything to back your stance, or even explaining it enough for it to be analysed. AND in the same post, you claim to be entitled to your hate towards some unspecified groups, and you assure you have "ample evidence and well grounded reasoning" to justify it. Misunderstanding or clear case of double standards? You tell me. Edited May 7, 2010 by 213374U

[Walsingham]

Small aside: there is an excellent history book called 'Alamein: War without Hate'. My grandfather fought through the whole of WW2 on the front line, and he said it was one of the best books about the experience he had.

 

[Gfted1]

Swedish artist attacked during free-speech lecture

 

May 11, 12:48 PM (ET)

 

STOCKHOLM (AP) - A Swedish artist who angered Muslims by depicting the Prophet Muhammad as a dog said Tuesday he was assaulted while giving a lecture at a university.

 

Lars Vilks told The Associated Press a man in the front row ran up to him and head-butted him during the lecture at Uppsala University. Vilks says his glasses were broken but he was not injured. It wasn't immediately clear what happened to the attacker.

 

Vilks said a group of about 15 people had been shouting and trying to interrupt the lecture before the incident. Many of them stormed the front of the room after the attack and clashed with security guards as Vilks was pulled away into a separate room, he said.

 

Swedish news agency TT said police detained two people during the commotion. Uppsala police declined to comment.

 

Vilks was giving a lecture about the limits of the freedom of expression in the world of art.

 

The Swedish artist says he has received repeated death threats over his drawing of Muhammad with a dog's body.

 

A U.S. woman faces a life term on accusations that she pledged to murder Vilks. Colleen LaRose, was arrested in Oct. 15 upon returning to Philadelphia from Europe. She has pleaded not guilty to a four-count indictment.

[RPGmasterBoo]

Swedish artist attacked during free-speech lecture

Lars Vilks told The Associated Press a man in the front row ran up to him and head-butted him during the lecture at Uppsala University. Vilks says his glasses were broken but he was not injured. It wasn't immediately clear what happened to the attacker.

 

Vilks said a group of about 15 people had been shouting and trying to interrupt the lecture before the incident. Many of them stormed the front of the room after the attack and clashed with security guards as Vilks was pulled away into a separate room, he said.

 

Swedish news agency TT said police detained two people during the commotion. Uppsala police declined to comment.

 

Vilks was giving a lecture about the limits of the freedom of expression in the world of art.

 

The Swedish artist says he has received repeated death threats over his drawing of Muhammad with a dog's body.

.

 

So, its not tantrums anymore?

[Morgoth]

Mohhamed as a dog is considered art?

 

Wacky Swedes.