|
On December 16 2010 09:06 RaptorX wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 09:02 Consolidate wrote:On December 16 2010 08:41 RaptorX wrote:On December 16 2010 08:29 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 16 2010 08:21 RaptorX wrote:
"A truly free society is one in which the people can express themselves however they want"
In the real World, that one that we live in, that doesnt exist because some times when you act "however you want" simply brings bad things not only to you but for other people.
You should be adult and intelligent enough to figure out that some times "what you want" is not in the best interest for you or the people around you at that particular moment.
Here comes my radical thought again, I dont mind of what you do as long as I am out of it, but when what you do, simply agitates the bees then I will simply laugh when they start biting you.
I love freedom of speech and I dont want it diminished, but there is something called responsibility and that guy will be responsible for the lives taken by the extremists because he used his freedom to provoke them. So it is his fault and I feel nothing for him.
There has to be a different way to persuade the fanatics that killing in the name of their god is not such a good thing instead of insulting them, dont you think? Your point is that you feel that he is thus "abusing" his freedom of speech. It seems most people disagree with your definition. He is not "abusing" anything. He is only exercising it. If the radicals also were threatening to kill innocents if abortion was legalized in the United States, what would your stance be? Would you blame the people that voted pro-choice? Quite true... the problem with this type of moral issues is that it is very difficult to draw a line on what is good and what is bad. What i think is that as long as your actions provoke the death of other people you should be very reserved on "exercising" your "right". It is like saying that i have the "right" of opening the cage that contains that hungry lion down there, even though there is a bunch of people trapped inside a room where the lion is going to be released from, I am actually quite safe in a high place... so... Should I "exercise" my "right" of opening the cage even though that means the death of all those people down there for NO REASON? I mean if the people trapped down there were criminals that raped and killed my family then hell yeah open it and enjoy it.. So lets step out of the analogy for a second... The lion is your current thought which is trapped in your head at the moment and that if released has the potential of killing some people (extremists will bomb innocent civilians), should you "exercise" your "right" at this particular moment? isnt the death of those people in your hands?... is your motive clean or are you an ill-intended person? why are you doing it? is it worth it? Isnt that abusing his right instead of using it for good? again, you are free to do what you want (in this analogy to open the cage) but is that the right thing to do? if not then you are abusing your right. Now change the analogy to fit the description of the abortion thing you just mentioned. The answer is YES I would blame them. Is it ok what the extremists are doing HELL NO. But if voting yes would get people killed I will find a different way to get my message across. I would fight for my opinion until it is heard but I will not do stupid stuff that will get me/other people killed. That seems intelligent enough doesnt it? No. What you say does not seem intelligent. A person with your mentality is dead-weight. Freedom of speech must be ENFORCED. If people are willing to go to the lengths of violence to destroy it, the situation forces the better class of human beings to respond in kind. You may one day come across a extremist so offended at the fact that you are not of his creed that he will try to kill you. Who will come to your aid? All the 'adult and intelligent' individuals' having long since conceded to the extremists. Lol they were trying to find the "freedom of speech" extremist and you showed yourself. As the saying goes "work smarter not harder". I will make other people understand the importance of freedom of speech without having to go down to their levels and act like them. Yes you think exactly like them but with a different idea, they want to ENFORCE their believe the same way as you do. As I said before you both groups look the same to me... kids in a kindergarten.
How can you convince these extremists if you can't even convince me?
You don't get it. I will kill you because your opinion offends me. Because you are obviously trying to provoke me, your death is your own responsibility.
I will kill you and you alone would be responsible.
Can you not see the obvious fault in your logic?
|
On December 16 2010 08:21 RaptorX wrote:
"A truly free society is one in which the people can express themselves however they want"
In the real World, that one that we live in, that doesnt exist because some times when you act "however you want" simply brings bad things not only to you but for other people.
You should be adult and intelligent enough to figure out that some times "what you want" is not in the best interest for you or the people around you at that particular moment.
Here comes my radical thought again, I dont mind of what you do as long as I am out of it, but when what you do, simply agitates the bees then I will simply laugh when they start biting you.
I love freedom of speech and I dont want it diminished, but there is something called responsibility and that guy will be responsible for the lives taken by the extremists because he used his freedom to provoke them. So it is his fault and I feel nothing for him.
There has to be a different way to persuade the fanatics that killing in the name of their god is not such a good thing instead of insulting them, dont you think?
And Churchill calling the Nazi's evil provoked them into attacking other european countries. If only that evil Winston churchill didn't provoke the Nazi's into killing millions of jews! How can such a horrible man be remembered as a hero for all the evil that he did!
What you don't understand is that they are raised from birth with the belief that dying and killing for allah is right. They read poetry from martyrs in classrooms, crying about how brave they will be in suicide bombing jews.
Let me leave you with a quote:
On December 16 2010 08:21 RaptorX wrote:
You should be adult and intelligent enough to figure out that some times "what you want" is not in the best interest for you or the people around you
|
On December 16 2010 08:30 contraSol wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 08:20 Sanjuro wrote:On December 16 2010 08:06 contraSol wrote:
That said, I'm not going to give my beliefs a back seat to some fanatic religious extremists, regardless of their threats. IMO doing so makes you a coward, or a person without convictions. Not sure which is worse. if you substitute fanatic religious extremists with fanatic freedom extremists you are also describing what the radicals thinks I've never met a "fanatic freedom extremist" who has strapped explosives to himself and bombed civilians for their speech. That would actually run counter to their beliefs (granted, bombing civilians runs counter to the principle that Islam is a peaceful religion). Come to think of it, I don't know what constitutes a "fanatic freedom extremist". That would be an anarchist, no? The point is, there are going to be disagreements between the billions of people and belief systems on this planet no matter what. What you're doing is placing blame on the people vocally disagreeing rather than the people arguing their side with high explosives.
what im saying is that those drawings offends ALL, yes all muslim are offended by those drawings, and why offend someone to just because you want to exercise your freedom of speech is such a load of crap, to me it's just a way to hide bigotry.
|
On December 16 2010 09:34 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Let me leave you with a quote: Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 08:21 RaptorX wrote:
You should be adult and intelligent enough to figure out that some times "what you want" is not in the best interest for you or the people around you
But this raises a serious question. Who is to determine what is responsible and what is not when it comes to expressing one's thoughts. Maybe ridiculing crude irrationalities and bigotry in religion (not restircted to Islam, of course, we can equally well ridicule catholic priests for abusing children) is the responsible thing to do? It worked pretty well in the era of enlightenment and if you know how hard free thinkers were oppressed by the church in Europe in the 17th and 18th century, you know what I am talking about.
|
The fact that drawing Muhammed offends muslims (even if it is all of them) doesn't negate the fact that it is an effective means of demonstrating one's criticism of Islam. The cartoonist made the cartoon to demonstrate his contempt for much of the intolerance of Islamic Law.
|
On December 16 2010 09:21 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 08:48 Squeegy wrote:On December 16 2010 08:21 RaptorX wrote:
"A truly free society is one in which the people can express themselves however they want"
In the real World, that one that we live in, that doesnt exist because some times when you act "however you want" simply brings bad things not only to you but for other people.
You should be adult and intelligent enough to figure out that some times "what you want" is not in the best interest for you or the people around you at that particular moment.
Here comes my radical thought again, I dont mind of what you do as long as I am out of it, but when what you do, simply agitates the bees then I will simply laugh when they start biting you.
I love freedom of speech and I dont want it diminished, but there is something called responsibility and that guy will be responsible for the lives taken by the extremists because he used his freedom to provoke them. So it is his fault and I feel nothing for him.
There has to be a different way to persuade the fanatics that killing in the name of their god is not such a good thing instead of insulting them, dont you think? Indeed freedom of speech is not nor should it be absolute. Consider the statement, McDonalds burgers made of human meat, in a large newspaper. Why should I be allowed to say that without consequences? Of course the Muhammed drawings are a different issue, but certain things should not be said in certain situations. The consequences should not come from the government. In your case, the consequence would be the natural damage to the newspaper's credibility once its reported claim is quickly disproved. In the United States, Glenn Beck is allowed to lie on television for the sole purpose of driving the public to panic (also ratings). We do not jail holocaust deniers. We do not jail fear-mongers. We do not jail liars. Freedom of speech is absolute. I am allowed to shout fire in a crowded theatre because there may in fact, be a fire. And if there isn't, then my credibility will suffer, but I should not be punished otherwise so as not to discourage other people from speaking what they think is the truth.
What the hell are you on. Freedom of speech is not absolute and you definitely aren't allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater unless there is a fire, whether or not you believe there to be one is irrelevant. Although you might get out with an insanity argument, I don't know how the courts work, but it'd be a huge stretch.
|
On December 16 2010 08:58 RaptorX wrote:I have centered most of my arguing based on this image: ![[image loading]](http://striderweb.com/blog/images/dogbody.jpg) how does this help getting your idea of freedom of speech to that country? how does insulting bring anything good? I simply dont get it.
There was some interesting text, I believe from the editor of Jyllands Posten (the paper which published the images in the first place) where he explained himself. Since I'm lazy I'm just going to paraphrase him rather than look it up.
"Caricature of various forms have long been standard and is part of our (Danish/Western) culture. Rather than exclude muslims/immigrants we want to include them in to our customs and make them feel like they are on a level playingfield with us rather than having an us vs them attitude."
That muslims stick to the us vs them attitude is rather obvious though. I mean I understand that the issue isn't an easy one but they should ease off, just as christian religious figures (and faith in general) did a long time ago.
|
On December 16 2010 09:49 Sanjuro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 08:30 contraSol wrote:On December 16 2010 08:20 Sanjuro wrote:On December 16 2010 08:06 contraSol wrote:
That said, I'm not going to give my beliefs a back seat to some fanatic religious extremists, regardless of their threats. IMO doing so makes you a coward, or a person without convictions. Not sure which is worse. if you substitute fanatic religious extremists with fanatic freedom extremists you are also describing what the radicals thinks I've never met a "fanatic freedom extremist" who has strapped explosives to himself and bombed civilians for their speech. That would actually run counter to their beliefs (granted, bombing civilians runs counter to the principle that Islam is a peaceful religion). Come to think of it, I don't know what constitutes a "fanatic freedom extremist". That would be an anarchist, no? The point is, there are going to be disagreements between the billions of people and belief systems on this planet no matter what. What you're doing is placing blame on the people vocally disagreeing rather than the people arguing their side with high explosives. what im saying is that those drawings offends ALL, yes all muslim are offended by those drawings, and why offend someone to just because you want to exercise your freedom of speech is such a load of crap, to me it's just a way to hide bigotry.
The drawings offend all Muslims ( I doubt even that... it may have offended all serious Muslims, but there are plenty of people who are muslims in name only). But even if it did I doubt it offended all people.
Cartoons of Hitler certainly offended all Nazis (at least all good Nazis)
and cartoons of Marx offended all good Communists.
I'm sure cartoons of Einstein offend all Relativistic physicists.
However, those people may need to be offended, the truth is often offensive. While offensive truth can be delivered graciously sometimes, oftentimes the offensiveness of the truth is necessary.
Now you may contend that the cartoons aren't supporting any truth, that Muhammed is a prophet of Allah, etc. You should realize that non muslims believe that to be an offensive lie. (if they didn't they would be muslims)
You also realize that if the concept of blasphemy as a crime was reintroduced to the western world, Muslims would be the first to be punished by it... claiming that Muhammed is a prophet from Allah would definitely be considered blasphemy.. as would much of the Koran. If you really want the Spanish Inquisition back... you may get it, but don't say you weren't warned.
Now simple poor taste has its own ways to be punished.. social/economic exclusion, perhaps subject to restriction from children. But legally its a bad idea... the person with the sword must not interfere with the pen.
Also, if you call fire in a crowded theater, and you actually believe there is a fire, then you are legally OK regardless of the actual fire (although you may be commited to a mental institution for seeing things that aren't there and endangering others)
|
On December 16 2010 09:55 hizBALLIN wrote:
The fact that drawing Muhammed offends muslims (even if it is all of them) doesn't negate the fact that it is an effective means of demonstrating one's criticism of Islam. The cartoonist made the cartoon to demonstrate his contempt for much of the intolerance of Islamic Law.
Yeah good way to promote tolerance with intolerance. GG
|
On December 16 2010 09:56 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 09:21 Consolidate wrote:On December 16 2010 08:48 Squeegy wrote:On December 16 2010 08:21 RaptorX wrote:
"A truly free society is one in which the people can express themselves however they want"
In the real World, that one that we live in, that doesnt exist because some times when you act "however you want" simply brings bad things not only to you but for other people.
You should be adult and intelligent enough to figure out that some times "what you want" is not in the best interest for you or the people around you at that particular moment.
Here comes my radical thought again, I dont mind of what you do as long as I am out of it, but when what you do, simply agitates the bees then I will simply laugh when they start biting you.
I love freedom of speech and I dont want it diminished, but there is something called responsibility and that guy will be responsible for the lives taken by the extremists because he used his freedom to provoke them. So it is his fault and I feel nothing for him.
There has to be a different way to persuade the fanatics that killing in the name of their god is not such a good thing instead of insulting them, dont you think? Indeed freedom of speech is not nor should it be absolute. Consider the statement, McDonalds burgers made of human meat, in a large newspaper. Why should I be allowed to say that without consequences? Of course the Muhammed drawings are a different issue, but certain things should not be said in certain situations. The consequences should not come from the government. In your case, the consequence would be the natural damage to the newspaper's credibility once its reported claim is quickly disproved. In the United States, Glenn Beck is allowed to lie on television for the sole purpose of driving the public to panic (also ratings). We do not jail holocaust deniers. We do not jail fear-mongers. We do not jail liars. Freedom of speech is absolute. I am allowed to shout fire in a crowded theatre because there may in fact, be a fire. And if there isn't, then my credibility will suffer, but I should not be punished otherwise so as not to discourage other people from speaking what they think is the truth. What the hell are you on. Freedom of speech is not absolute and you definitely aren't allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater unless there is a fire, whether or not you believe there to be one is irrelevant. Although you might get out with an insanity argument, I don't know how the courts work, but it'd be a huge stretch.
You are right in saying that you don't know how the courts work. Perhaps you should better educate yourself:
Holmes, writing for a unanimous majority, ruled that it was illegal to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote:
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
Holmes wrote of falsely shouting fire, because, of course, if there were a fire in a crowded theater, one may rightly indeed shout "Fire!"; one may, depending on the law in operation, even be obliged to. Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, i.e. shouting "Fire!" when one believes there to be no fire in order to cause panic, was interpreted not to be protected by the First Amendment.
The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). The test in Brandenburg is the current High Court jurisprudence on the ability of government to proscribe speech after that fact.
Allow me to reiterate. In the United States there is absolute freedom of speech.
I do not expect you to be familiar with American law, but I do ask you to refrain from arguing from ignorance.
|
Sanjuro, I analyze, talk about, and sometimes make fun of every religion, ethnicity, and personality type on this planet [that I know about], including my own. None, so far, have tried to kill me. To me, bigotry is saying that there is one religion/ethnicity/person out there that you CANNOT analyze/talk about/make fun of. It's either all fair game or none of it's fair game, and if none of it is OK, then we are not free to discuss anything on a deeper-than-superficial level. Our ideas will never progress.
|
On December 16 2010 10:08 Sanjuro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 09:55 hizBALLIN wrote:
The fact that drawing Muhammed offends muslims (even if it is all of them) doesn't negate the fact that it is an effective means of demonstrating one's criticism of Islam. The cartoonist made the cartoon to demonstrate his contempt for much of the intolerance of Islamic Law. Yeah good way to promote tolerance with intolerance. GG
Intolerance of intolerance is different than naked intolerance.
I am intolerant of bigots. Does that make me a bigot? Even if I am technically bigoted against bigots, surely you can see the difference...
Don't get caught up on semantics, you're not fooling anyone.
|
On December 16 2010 10:04 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 09:49 Sanjuro wrote:On December 16 2010 08:30 contraSol wrote:On December 16 2010 08:20 Sanjuro wrote:On December 16 2010 08:06 contraSol wrote:
That said, I'm not going to give my beliefs a back seat to some fanatic religious extremists, regardless of their threats. IMO doing so makes you a coward, or a person without convictions. Not sure which is worse. if you substitute fanatic religious extremists with fanatic freedom extremists you are also describing what the radicals thinks I've never met a "fanatic freedom extremist" who has strapped explosives to himself and bombed civilians for their speech. That would actually run counter to their beliefs (granted, bombing civilians runs counter to the principle that Islam is a peaceful religion). Come to think of it, I don't know what constitutes a "fanatic freedom extremist". That would be an anarchist, no? The point is, there are going to be disagreements between the billions of people and belief systems on this planet no matter what. What you're doing is placing blame on the people vocally disagreeing rather than the people arguing their side with high explosives. what im saying is that those drawings offends ALL, yes all muslim are offended by those drawings, and why offend someone to just because you want to exercise your freedom of speech is such a load of crap, to me it's just a way to hide bigotry. The drawings offend all Muslims ( I doubt even that... it may have offended all serious Muslims, but there are plenty of people who are muslims in name only). But even if it did I doubt it offended all people. Cartoons of Hitler certainly offended all Nazis (at least all good Nazis) and cartoons of Marx offended all good Communists. I'm sure cartoons of Einstein offend all Relativistic physicists. However, those people may need to be offended, the truth is often offensive. While offensive truth can be delivered graciously sometimes, oftentimes the offensiveness of the truth is necessary. Now you may contend that the cartoons aren't supporting any truth, that Muhammed is a prophet of Allah, etc. You should realize that non muslims believe that to be an offensive lie. (if they didn't they would be muslims) You also realize that if the concept of blasphemy as a crime was reintroduced to the western world, Muslims would be the first to be punished by it... claiming that Muhammed is a prophet from Allah would definitely be considered blasphemy.. as would much of the Koran. If you really want the Spanish Inquisition back... you may get it, but don't say you weren't warned. Now simple poor taste has its own ways to be punished.. social/economic exclusion, perhaps subject to restriction from children. But legally its a bad idea... the person with the sword must not interfere with the pen. Also, if you call fire in a crowded theater, and you actually believe there is a fire, then you are legally OK regardless of the actual fire (although you may be commited to a mental institution for seeing things that aren't there and endangering others)
nah, the way i see it, if you are not offended by it then you are not a Muslim, it's a simple as that, you gonna open a can of spanish inquisition on me, bring it on LOL, you are so funny
|
I think depictions should obviously be allowed due to freedom of speech, no question about it. However, I don't think such drawing should be encouraged in any way, due to public safety issues. It's like revamping airport security, obviously it takes away some freedom or adds some annoyances for every traveler, but it's for safety purposes because the truth is there are some nutsos out there.
|
On December 16 2010 10:08 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 09:56 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 16 2010 09:21 Consolidate wrote:On December 16 2010 08:48 Squeegy wrote:On December 16 2010 08:21 RaptorX wrote:
"A truly free society is one in which the people can express themselves however they want"
In the real World, that one that we live in, that doesnt exist because some times when you act "however you want" simply brings bad things not only to you but for other people.
You should be adult and intelligent enough to figure out that some times "what you want" is not in the best interest for you or the people around you at that particular moment.
Here comes my radical thought again, I dont mind of what you do as long as I am out of it, but when what you do, simply agitates the bees then I will simply laugh when they start biting you.
I love freedom of speech and I dont want it diminished, but there is something called responsibility and that guy will be responsible for the lives taken by the extremists because he used his freedom to provoke them. So it is his fault and I feel nothing for him.
There has to be a different way to persuade the fanatics that killing in the name of their god is not such a good thing instead of insulting them, dont you think? Indeed freedom of speech is not nor should it be absolute. Consider the statement, McDonalds burgers made of human meat, in a large newspaper. Why should I be allowed to say that without consequences? Of course the Muhammed drawings are a different issue, but certain things should not be said in certain situations. The consequences should not come from the government. In your case, the consequence would be the natural damage to the newspaper's credibility once its reported claim is quickly disproved. In the United States, Glenn Beck is allowed to lie on television for the sole purpose of driving the public to panic (also ratings). We do not jail holocaust deniers. We do not jail fear-mongers. We do not jail liars. Freedom of speech is absolute. I am allowed to shout fire in a crowded theatre because there may in fact, be a fire. And if there isn't, then my credibility will suffer, but I should not be punished otherwise so as not to discourage other people from speaking what they think is the truth. What the hell are you on. Freedom of speech is not absolute and you definitely aren't allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater unless there is a fire, whether or not you believe there to be one is irrelevant. Although you might get out with an insanity argument, I don't know how the courts work, but it'd be a huge stretch. You are right in saying that you don't know how the courts work. Perhaps you should better educate yourself: Holmes, writing for a unanimous majority, ruled that it was illegal to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote: The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. Holmes wrote of falsely shouting fire, because, of course, if there were a fire in a crowded theater, one may rightly indeed shout "Fire!"; one may, depending on the law in operation, even be obliged to. Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, i.e. shouting "Fire!" when one believes there to be no fire in order to cause panic, was interpreted not to be protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). The test in Brandenburg is the current High Court jurisprudence on the ability of government to proscribe speech after that fact. Allow me to reiterate. In the United States there is absolute freedom of speech. I do not expect you to be familiar with American law, but I do ask you to refrain from arguing from ignorance.
Maybe I'm not understanding your definition of absolute. Because still with the Brandenburg test there is some limited speech. At the same time, libel/slander are clear limits on free speech, as you can be sued for it. So what do you mean by "absolute."
At the same time, how is the yelling fire in a theater not qualify as reckless endangerment? Especially if the result is a stampede that kills someone.
|
On December 16 2010 10:09 contraSol wrote:
Sanjuro, I analyze, talk about, and sometimes make fun of every religion, ethnicity, and personality type on this planet [that I know about], including my own. None, so far, have tried to kill me. To me, bigotry is saying that there is one religion/ethnicity/person out there that you CANNOT analyze/talk about/make fun of. It's either all fair game or none of it's fair game, and if none of it is OK, then we are not free to discuss anything on a deeper-than-superficial level. Our ideas will never progress.
i have many friends from other religions, its one of the perks living in Indonesia so much diversity thats makes me to be a more tolerent person,
of course people will make fun of every other religion, i've traded jokes with christians friends, the funny thing is our jokes are the exact same thing even the punchline, his jokes uses imams, my jokes uses priest. i dont take offense in it.
i have nothing against discusion about religion, but posting/sharing a drawing of a person considered most holy by muslims with an animal body does not provoke discussion, it provokes just more hatred that we dont need.
|
On December 16 2010 10:36 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 10:08 Consolidate wrote:On December 16 2010 09:56 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 16 2010 09:21 Consolidate wrote:On December 16 2010 08:48 Squeegy wrote:On December 16 2010 08:21 RaptorX wrote:
"A truly free society is one in which the people can express themselves however they want"
In the real World, that one that we live in, that doesnt exist because some times when you act "however you want" simply brings bad things not only to you but for other people.
You should be adult and intelligent enough to figure out that some times "what you want" is not in the best interest for you or the people around you at that particular moment.
Here comes my radical thought again, I dont mind of what you do as long as I am out of it, but when what you do, simply agitates the bees then I will simply laugh when they start biting you.
I love freedom of speech and I dont want it diminished, but there is something called responsibility and that guy will be responsible for the lives taken by the extremists because he used his freedom to provoke them. So it is his fault and I feel nothing for him.
There has to be a different way to persuade the fanatics that killing in the name of their god is not such a good thing instead of insulting them, dont you think? Indeed freedom of speech is not nor should it be absolute. Consider the statement, McDonalds burgers made of human meat, in a large newspaper. Why should I be allowed to say that without consequences? Of course the Muhammed drawings are a different issue, but certain things should not be said in certain situations. The consequences should not come from the government. In your case, the consequence would be the natural damage to the newspaper's credibility once its reported claim is quickly disproved. In the United States, Glenn Beck is allowed to lie on television for the sole purpose of driving the public to panic (also ratings). We do not jail holocaust deniers. We do not jail fear-mongers. We do not jail liars. Freedom of speech is absolute. I am allowed to shout fire in a crowded theatre because there may in fact, be a fire. And if there isn't, then my credibility will suffer, but I should not be punished otherwise so as not to discourage other people from speaking what they think is the truth. What the hell are you on. Freedom of speech is not absolute and you definitely aren't allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater unless there is a fire, whether or not you believe there to be one is irrelevant. Although you might get out with an insanity argument, I don't know how the courts work, but it'd be a huge stretch. You are right in saying that you don't know how the courts work. Perhaps you should better educate yourself: Holmes, writing for a unanimous majority, ruled that it was illegal to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote: The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. Holmes wrote of falsely shouting fire, because, of course, if there were a fire in a crowded theater, one may rightly indeed shout "Fire!"; one may, depending on the law in operation, even be obliged to. Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, i.e. shouting "Fire!" when one believes there to be no fire in order to cause panic, was interpreted not to be protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). The test in Brandenburg is the current High Court jurisprudence on the ability of government to proscribe speech after that fact. Allow me to reiterate. In the United States there is absolute freedom of speech. I do not expect you to be familiar with American law, but I do ask you to refrain from arguing from ignorance. Maybe I'm not understanding your definition of absolute. Because still with the Brandenburg test there is some limited speech. At the same time, libel/slander are clear limits on free speech, as you can be sued for it. So what do you mean by "absolute."
At the federal level there are no criminal defamation laws. Libel/slader are civil matters, not criminal.
|
On December 16 2010 10:19 Sanjuro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 10:04 Krikkitone wrote:On December 16 2010 09:49 Sanjuro wrote:On December 16 2010 08:30 contraSol wrote:On December 16 2010 08:20 Sanjuro wrote:On December 16 2010 08:06 contraSol wrote:
That said, I'm not going to give my beliefs a back seat to some fanatic religious extremists, regardless of their threats. IMO doing so makes you a coward, or a person without convictions. Not sure which is worse. if you substitute fanatic religious extremists with fanatic freedom extremists you are also describing what the radicals thinks I've never met a "fanatic freedom extremist" who has strapped explosives to himself and bombed civilians for their speech. That would actually run counter to their beliefs (granted, bombing civilians runs counter to the principle that Islam is a peaceful religion). Come to think of it, I don't know what constitutes a "fanatic freedom extremist". That would be an anarchist, no? The point is, there are going to be disagreements between the billions of people and belief systems on this planet no matter what. What you're doing is placing blame on the people vocally disagreeing rather than the people arguing their side with high explosives. what im saying is that those drawings offends ALL, yes all muslim are offended by those drawings, and why offend someone to just because you want to exercise your freedom of speech is such a load of crap, to me it's just a way to hide bigotry. The drawings offend all Muslims ( I doubt even that... it may have offended all serious Muslims, but there are plenty of people who are muslims in name only). But even if it did I doubt it offended all people. Cartoons of Hitler certainly offended all Nazis (at least all good Nazis) and cartoons of Marx offended all good Communists. I'm sure cartoons of Einstein offend all Relativistic physicists. However, those people may need to be offended, the truth is often offensive. While offensive truth can be delivered graciously sometimes, oftentimes the offensiveness of the truth is necessary. Now you may contend that the cartoons aren't supporting any truth, that Muhammed is a prophet of Allah, etc. You should realize that non muslims believe that to be an offensive lie. (if they didn't they would be muslims) You also realize that if the concept of blasphemy as a crime was reintroduced to the western world, Muslims would be the first to be punished by it... claiming that Muhammed is a prophet from Allah would definitely be considered blasphemy.. as would much of the Koran. If you really want the Spanish Inquisition back... you may get it, but don't say you weren't warned. Now simple poor taste has its own ways to be punished.. social/economic exclusion, perhaps subject to restriction from children. But legally its a bad idea... the person with the sword must not interfere with the pen. Also, if you call fire in a crowded theater, and you actually believe there is a fire, then you are legally OK regardless of the actual fire (although you may be commited to a mental institution for seeing things that aren't there and endangering others) nah, the way i see it, if you are not offended by it then you are not a Muslim, it's a simple of that, you gonna open a can of spanish inquisition on me, bring it on LOL, you are so funny
I see. And I'm not threatening the Spanish Inquisition... I'm saying that's what restricting it would lead to (even though you wouldn't expect it).
I mean you already have some of the beginnings of the right ingredients in Europe.. an "'underclass' feeding off of more 'noble' cultures".
and in the US "security measures" that the people are always wanting to profile more.
Essentially restricting those cartoon would show that the Nazis and Fascists were right in their basic principle(just unfortunate on the military front), Liberal Democracy doesn't work.
And since Communism demonstrably doesn't either... we have a limited number of models.
I mean the ovens probably wouldn't get going until at least the 70s or 80s... but they still might. And I'd be really annoyed that it was because some people couldn't live with being mocked.
|
On December 16 2010 10:43 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 10:36 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 16 2010 10:08 Consolidate wrote:On December 16 2010 09:56 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 16 2010 09:21 Consolidate wrote:On December 16 2010 08:48 Squeegy wrote:On December 16 2010 08:21 RaptorX wrote:
"A truly free society is one in which the people can express themselves however they want"
In the real World, that one that we live in, that doesnt exist because some times when you act "however you want" simply brings bad things not only to you but for other people.
You should be adult and intelligent enough to figure out that some times "what you want" is not in the best interest for you or the people around you at that particular moment.
Here comes my radical thought again, I dont mind of what you do as long as I am out of it, but when what you do, simply agitates the bees then I will simply laugh when they start biting you.
I love freedom of speech and I dont want it diminished, but there is something called responsibility and that guy will be responsible for the lives taken by the extremists because he used his freedom to provoke them. So it is his fault and I feel nothing for him.
There has to be a different way to persuade the fanatics that killing in the name of their god is not such a good thing instead of insulting them, dont you think? Indeed freedom of speech is not nor should it be absolute. Consider the statement, McDonalds burgers made of human meat, in a large newspaper. Why should I be allowed to say that without consequences? Of course the Muhammed drawings are a different issue, but certain things should not be said in certain situations. The consequences should not come from the government. In your case, the consequence would be the natural damage to the newspaper's credibility once its reported claim is quickly disproved. In the United States, Glenn Beck is allowed to lie on television for the sole purpose of driving the public to panic (also ratings). We do not jail holocaust deniers. We do not jail fear-mongers. We do not jail liars. Freedom of speech is absolute. I am allowed to shout fire in a crowded theatre because there may in fact, be a fire. And if there isn't, then my credibility will suffer, but I should not be punished otherwise so as not to discourage other people from speaking what they think is the truth. What the hell are you on. Freedom of speech is not absolute and you definitely aren't allowed to shout fire in a crowded theater unless there is a fire, whether or not you believe there to be one is irrelevant. Although you might get out with an insanity argument, I don't know how the courts work, but it'd be a huge stretch. You are right in saying that you don't know how the courts work. Perhaps you should better educate yourself: Holmes, writing for a unanimous majority, ruled that it was illegal to distribute flyers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote: The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. Holmes wrote of falsely shouting fire, because, of course, if there were a fire in a crowded theater, one may rightly indeed shout "Fire!"; one may, depending on the law in operation, even be obliged to. Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, i.e. shouting "Fire!" when one believes there to be no fire in order to cause panic, was interpreted not to be protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment holding in Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which limited the scope of banned speech to that which would be directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). The test in Brandenburg is the current High Court jurisprudence on the ability of government to proscribe speech after that fact. Allow me to reiterate. In the United States there is absolute freedom of speech. I do not expect you to be familiar with American law, but I do ask you to refrain from arguing from ignorance. Maybe I'm not understanding your definition of absolute. Because still with the Brandenburg test there is some limited speech. At the same time, libel/slander are clear limits on free speech, as you can be sued for it. So what do you mean by "absolute." At the federal level there are no criminal defamation laws. Libel/slader are civil matters, not criminal.
I see, I was aware that they were civil matters, but I wasn't aware you were making a distinction between civil vs criminal in your claim that freedom of speech is absolute.
Also, I'm curious why yelling fire in a theater does not qualify as reckless endangerment, especially if it results in the stampede and death of someone.
|
On December 16 2010 10:39 Sanjuro wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 10:09 contraSol wrote:
Sanjuro, I analyze, talk about, and sometimes make fun of every religion, ethnicity, and personality type on this planet [that I know about], including my own. None, so far, have tried to kill me. To me, bigotry is saying that there is one religion/ethnicity/person out there that you CANNOT analyze/talk about/make fun of. It's either all fair game or none of it's fair game, and if none of it is OK, then we are not free to discuss anything on a deeper-than-superficial level. Our ideas will never progress. i have many friends from other religions, its one of the perks living in Indonesia so much diversity thats makes me to be a more tolerent person, of course people will make fun of every other religion, i've traded jokes with christians friends, the funny thing is our jokes are the exact same thing even the punchline, his jokes uses imams, my jokes uses priest. i dont take offense in it. i have nothing against discusion about religion, but posting/sharing a drawing of a person considered most holy by muslims with an animal body does not provoke discussion, it provokes just more hatred that we dont need.
The publishing of such a cartoon should not be a criminal offense. The mere existence of the Muslim religion offends me, but I don't call for it to be outlawed, nor am I driven to violence over it.
The people who set fire to the Danish embassy are the actual criminals. It's strange how people forget that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
