|
On December 16 2010 10:46 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 10:43 Consolidate wrote: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.
The distinction should be obvious. Civil matters are between individuals. Criminal matters are between the individual and the government. Freedom of speech is protected by the government.
Don't get carried away with the definition of 'absolute'. There is no celestial law to justify freedom of speech. What I'm merely saying is that level of freedom of speech in the US protected by national law is greater than people think.
'Shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre' could be considered to be reckless endangerment. However, remember that this example is an analogy - it's not actually a free speech issue.
|
Don't you see, sanjuro? Simply drawing a picture of Mohammad IS as social criticism of the religion and its values. That IS the discussion topic. Look at us... we're discussing freedom of speech right now, all because someone drew a picture. Yeah, it offends people, but you know what, the mere idea that the Earth wasn't flat offended the Catholic church for hundreds of years. Socrates was forced to drink poison for "corrupting youth" with his ideas, yet they were some of the most influential, world-changing philosophies in human history. Where would we be if not for those who spoke, wrote, and created against the will of people with the power to end their lives? Where would we be if everyone adopted your philosophy of "free speech... until it pisses someone off"?
|
On December 16 2010 11:01 Consolidate wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 10:46 FabledIntegral wrote:On December 16 2010 10:43 Consolidate wrote: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. The distinction should be obvious. Civil matters are between individuals. Criminal matters are between the individual and the government. Freedom of speech is protected by the government. Don't get carried away with the definition of 'absolute'. There is no celestial law to justify freedom of speech. What I'm merely saying is that level of freedom of speech in the US protected by national law is greater than people think.
As said, I'm not fluent with the court system. I was under the assumption if something was protected by the government, it meant you were protected in both civil and criminal situations.
|
the way i see it contraSol, you are comparing an idiot to Socrates, come on. he cant even draw. What does he know about Islam? is he a theologist? did he spent time in a muslim country learning about Islam and it's values, or did he just sit down and googled Islam then make a drawing?
at least defend somebody that worth defending, not that troll
|
On December 16 2010 11:29 Sanjuro wrote:
the way i see it contraSol, you are comparing an idiot to Socrates, come on. he cant even draw. What does he know about Islam? is he a theologist? did he spent time in a muslim country learning about the Islam and it's values, or did he just sit down and googled Islam then make a drawing?
at least defend somebody that worth defending, not that troll
We are defending a principle, not just a man.
|
There's no test required to earn your "freedom of speech" license. I'm not defending that guy, I'm defending the idea, and for that idea to work, it has to be universal. Yes, some bigoted douchebags will say/write/draw some intolerant, hateful things, but in the same vein, some intelligent, foreword-thinking individuals will say/write/draw things that change the way we look at the world. If you can't consider the source and tune out the ignorant hatespeech, thats on you.
|
This pretty much explains it all:
![[image loading]](http://thetodaynews.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/South-Park-SuperBestFriends.jpg)
The lives of the south park creators were threatened before censoring this episode. Yet South Park has made fun of everyone and everything, including scenes of Jesus doing drugs. Do radical Christians threaten to bomb the White House, or do they shrug it off/ignore it?
|
so the solution to people possibly getting hurt by drawing muhammad cartoons is to do it first and ruin their lives by locking them up in prison?
Arn't you just terrorizing the victims even before offense is taken? how stupid is that.
|
On December 16 2010 11:56 chadissilent wrote:This pretty much explains it all: The lives of the south park creators were threatened before censoring this episode. Yet South Park has made fun of everyone and everything, including scenes of Jesus doing drugs. Do radical Christians threaten to bomb the White House, or do they shrug it off/ignore it?
I remember that south park episode where they censored the image of the prophet mohamed. In the end they had, I think it was, Jesus taking a shit all over an american flag - this was just fine. >.>
These muslims that advocate that violence are just doing what they always do - using terror to fulfill their goals. We should never give in to their demands, for the sake of all the people who have died in past wars over our freedom (In europe and America alike). Enough with the violence.... God doesn't even exist.. 
|
I don't even see how this can be argued either way, you censor it and they threaten more about new bullsh**, you don't censor it and supposedly they kill people? I'm getting so fed up with these retards, what makes them think killing INNOCENT PEOPLE because of the act of that government or one man. Simply stupid, does America go and purposely kill a bunch of women and children just because they have the same religion as or live in the same area as these sleez bags?
These people who commit the suicide bombings are usually just weak minded beings that get brain washed by superiors. I hope these guys feel like retards when they wake up in hell. No God and no religion has ever said that it is okay to kill people for no reason.
|
I feel that we shoudl respect every religion regardless of what they believe. To muslims, drawings and depictions of muhammad are banned, so we should respect that in the very least.
just as we respect christains and the right to go to church on sundays, which is something they are supposed to do, and we as a society respect that.
I really feel that to myself, the images are insulting to me, i am not muslim, but i believe in all the religions of the world, and feels its disrespectful to everyone.
I feel many people take the freedom of speech thing too extreme. my thinking of the freedom is that we have the freedom to seek our minds, so long as it does not infringe on the rights and freedoms of others. it seems as though the person who is drawing the pictures is infringing on the rights and freedoms of muslims and their own religious law.
I feel that many people are getting too passionate about this issue and really taking things to the extreme, in both ways. with the discrimation of muslims by people in this forum and by society, but that does not grant them the right to bomb of kill us in any respect.
mind you. out of the almost 2 billion muslims, maybe a few thousand are auctual terroists, if you think about the percentage, its amanzingly small.
This is respect of almost every religion though, heck. there are christains who bomb abortion clinics, but not all christains are bombers though. we have to remember to not judge a few bad apples from the bunch.
|
On December 16 2010 16:37 masterbreti wrote:
I feel that we shoudl respect every religion regardless of what they believe. To muslims, drawings and depictions of muhammad are banned, so we should respect that in the very least.
just as we respect christains and the right to go to church on sundays, which is something they are supposed to do, and we as a society respect that.
I really feel that to myself, the images are insulting to me, i am not muslim, but i believe in all the religions of the world, and feels its disrespectful to everyone.
I feel many people take the freedom of speech thing too extreme. my thinking of the freedom is that we have the freedom to seek our minds, so long as it does not infringe on the rights and freedoms of others. it seems as though the person who is drawing the pictures is infringing on the rights and freedoms of muslims and their own religious law.
I feel that many people are getting too passionate about this issue and really taking things to the extreme, in both ways. with the discrimation of muslims by people in this forum and by society, but that does not grant them the right to bomb of kill us in any respect.
mind you. out of the almost 2 billion muslims, maybe a few thousand are auctual terroists, if you think about the percentage, its amanzingly small.
This is respect of almost every religion though, heck. there are christains who bomb abortion clinics, but not all christains are bombers though. we have to remember to not judge a few bad apples from the bunch.
Yes, I am passionate about the rights that supposedly come with American citizenship. I am passionate about the ideals that my country was founded upon (minus the whole slavery thing... not such a big fan). Please excuse me for my outrage when these promises fail to deliver, and for my disbelief that only a handful of people seem to actually care. Excuse me for worrying that people care more about hurting a group's feelings than for protecting its rights. With that, I'll excuse myself from this thread. It's getting too depressing.
|
On December 16 2010 09:49 Sanjuro wrote:
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.
You know what offends me? Women not being allowed to show their faces in public because some douche bag might have an impure thought. Little girls having acid splashed in their faces for the offense of going to school. Women not being allowed to work or drive cars, or spend five minutes in a room with a stranger. People being beheaded for adultery. Authors having death sentences put on their heads for writing a book. Artists having their throats slit for creating art. Teenagers being brainwashed into turning themselves into suicide bombers, and killing innocent people in their demented quest for paradise.
And of course, I'm offended by Muslims who defend it all by claiming that I just don't understand.
I don't WANT to understand the sick and degenerate culture that makes such extremism tolerable. In my opinion, Islamic culture SHOULD be offended on a regular basis, you should be prodded and provoked until you get off your asses and do something to root out this cancer within your ranks. And if you refuse to do it, we will, and to be brutally frank that's going to be a lot more messy.
And yes, America has our own extremists, who would murder innocent people to forward their agenda, like Timothy McVeigh. You know what we do to them? We fucking kill them. We don't defend their actions by saying "the FBI is pretty offensive, so those kids in the daycare center kinda had it coming!"
|
On December 16 2010 10:51 Consolidate wrote:
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.
I completely agree with you, and if you guys had really read all my posts you would see that I have never mentioned that the cartoons should be banned or that free speech should be trimmed down by any means.
What I AM saying is that the person who created the cartoons did have the option of thinking before exercising his rights and decide whether publishing it would be good for him, his country or free speech in general. In my opinion it doesnt and anything that comes after that would be on him.
SnK-Arcbound brought Churchill in to the conversation as if it has anything to do with what Im arguing... Churchill said Nazis are evil, and stood by it without defending his thought behind "freedom of speech" and what he said was the pure truth, Nazis were/are evil.
These cartoons dont depict anything that i can say is completely true. Muslims arent dogs/animals so his cartoons were more to provoke than to call the truth, and going behind the freedom of speech shit is just being coward.
Actually few posts before somebody posted a cartoon that i thought it was very good and would support the creator even with the cost of my own life.
The cartoon depicts a Muslim drawing a devilish Jew but at the same time complaining when someone else draws Mohammad. THAT cartoon is helping bring across a very important thought treat others as you want to be treated. If they want tolerance for their religion then they must tolerate other cultures including the Jews.
The cartoons I saw from Sweden are trouble makers and bring nothing good to the argument, thus I dont support the creator and dont feel anything about what happens next to him and his country.
When South Park depicted Muhammad handing something to another character I was fully supporting them and I think is a shame that it got censored in the end. "But what is the difference?" you may ask, that depicting Muhammad handing something is not the same as depicting Muhammad's head on a dogs body. It is not the time for those kind of jokes yet...
I hope that in the future we can make jokes about Muhammad pooping on an American flag or something like that and that we can laugh it off, but guess what? we are not there yet, we still have a long way to go.
Muslims do not think like us and they dont believe in freedom of speech either, so if we want them to think like us we must first spoon feed that Idea to them until they get used to it and then later on try with something harder until they are like us.... You do not give a 3 month old baby chili for a reason.
On December 16 2010 09:14 Krigwin wrote:
You have the worst logic I have ever seen. Comparing freedom of speech to religious extremism? "Freedom of speech extremist"? I can't even wrap my mind around how bizarre your reasoning is.
dude, being an extremist is simply grabbing an idea and stretching it to some stupid extreme level, like "you dont like my god, i kill you" or "we ALL need to have free speech, so we need to enforce it by any means necessary even if my actions will provoke deaths of innocent people".
Those are extremes.
I think that there should be another way to get our message across, and the less people die in the process the better, but it seems to be that not many people agree with that, they just want what they want and they want it NOW even though it might be bad not only for them but for people around them (thats what shocks me the most, that they dont care that their actions might make
the islamists blow OTHER people up instead of the creator of the cartoon).
Thats the reason I left that quote a few posts ago:
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.
Note the bold. It is not that your idea about enforcing freedom of speech is bad, I want the other people on this world to be free as I am... The problem comes with the timing. There are certain things that we should not do now. It is not cowardice is prudence. The same prudence exercised by the military before sending soldiers to certain areas. They are not cowards but they wont just simply send all their troops forward.
|
On December 16 2010 23:28 RaptorX wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 10:51 Consolidate wrote:
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. I completely agree with you, and if you guys had really read all my posts you would see that I have never mentioned that the cartoons should be banned or that free speech should be trimmed down by any means. What I AM saying is that the person who created the cartoons did have the option of thinking before exercising his rights and decide whether publishing it would be good for him, his country or free speech in general. In my opinion it doesnt and anything that comes after that would be on him. SnK-Arcbound brought Churchill in to the conversation as if it has anything to do with what Im arguing... Churchill said Nazis are evil, and stood by it without defending his thought behind "freedom of speech" and what he said was the pure truth, Nazis were/are evil. These cartoons dont depict anything that i can say is completely true. Muslims arent dogs/animals so his cartoons were more to provoke than to call the truth, and going behind the freedom of speech shit is just being coward. Actually few posts before somebody posted a cartoon that i thought it was very good and would support the creator even with the cost of my own life. The cartoon depicts a Muslim drawing a devilish Jew but at the same time complaining when someone else draws Mohammad. THAT cartoon is helping bring across a very important thought treat others as you want to be treated. If they want tolerance for their religion then they must tolerate other cultures including the Jews. The cartoons I saw from Sweden are trouble makers and bring nothing good to the argument, thus I dont support the creator and dont feel anything about what happens next to him and his country. When South Park depicted Muhammad handing something to another character I was fully supporting them and I think is a shame that it got censored in the end. "But what is the difference?" you may ask, that depicting Muhammad handing something is not the same as depicting Muhammad's head on a dogs body. It is not the time for those kind of jokes yet... I hope that in the future we can make jokes about Muhammad pooping on an American flag or something like that and that we can laugh it off, but guess what? we are not there yet, we still have a long way to go. Muslims do not think like us and they dont believe in freedom of speech either, so if we want them to think like us we must first spoon feed that Idea to them until they get used to it and then later on try with something harder until they are like us.... You do not give a 3 month old baby chili for a reason. Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 09:14 Krigwin wrote:
You have the worst logic I have ever seen. Comparing freedom of speech to religious extremism? "Freedom of speech extremist"? I can't even wrap my mind around how bizarre your reasoning is. dude, being an extremist is simply grabbing an idea and stretching it to some stupid extreme level, like "you dont like my god, i kill you" or "we ALL need to have free speech, so we need to enforce it by any means necessary even if my actions will provoke deaths of innocent people". Those are extremes. I think that there should be another way to get our message across, and the less people die in the process the better, but it seems to be that not many people agree with that, they just want what they want and they want it NOW even though it might be bad not only for them but for people around them (thats what shocks me the most, that they dont care that their actions might make the islamists blow OTHER people up instead of the creator of the cartoon). Thats the reason I left that quote a few posts ago: Show nested quote +
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.
Note the bold. It is not that your idea about enforcing freedom of speech is bad, I want the other people on this world to be free as I am... The problem comes with the timing. There are certain things that we should not do now. It is not cowardice is prudence. The same prudence exercised by the military before sending soldiers to certain areas. They are not cowards but they wont just simply send all their troops forward.
that they dont care that their actions might make the islamists blow OTHER people up instead of the creator of the cartoon
Perhaps instead the islamists should think before exercising their ability to blow people up, because it might make the west go and invade their countries.
You can't shift the blame like that... the islamists are NOT 3 month olds.. they aren't infants they are adults. There are things they (collectively and individually) dislike and they react to them, just as there are things we(collectively and individually) dislike and react to.
And in our society there are particular ways you react to things if you don't want the government to react by jailing/executing you and your associates.
|
On December 16 2010 23:50 Krikkitone wrote:
Perhaps instead the islamists should think before exercising their ability to blow people up, because it might make the west go and invade their countries.
You can't shift the blame like that... the islamists are NOT 3 month olds.. they aren't infants they are adults. There are things they (collectively and individually) dislike and they react to them, just as there are things we(collectively and individually) dislike and react to.
And in our society there are particular ways you react to things if you don't want the government to react by jailing/executing you and your associates.
Agree, but insulting them is not the way to try to make them understand that.
Also the analogy with the infant was just an example of how their understanding of free speech is at the moment.
We cannot start making some kinds of jokes yet because they do not understand that those are jokes and are not meant to be taken personally, the analogy tried to explain that we should try to teach them freedom of speech slowly, and when they reach certain "maturity" on that particular topic then we can joke with them or at them knowing that the reaction will not be the extreme one we are seeing today.
|
On December 17 2010 00:01 RaptorX wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2010 23:50 Krikkitone wrote:
Perhaps instead the islamists should think before exercising their ability to blow people up, because it might make the west go and invade their countries.
You can't shift the blame like that... the islamists are NOT 3 month olds.. they aren't infants they are adults. There are things they (collectively and individually) dislike and they react to them, just as there are things we(collectively and individually) dislike and react to.
And in our society there are particular ways you react to things if you don't want the government to react by jailing/executing you and your associates.
Agree, but insulting them is not the way to try to make them understand that. Also the analogy with the infant was just an example of how their understanding of free speech is at the moment. We cannot start making some kinds of jokes yet because they do not understand that those are jokes and are not meant to be taken personally, the analogy tried to explain that we should try to teach them freedom of speech slowly, and when they reach certain "maturity" on that particular topic then we can joke with them or at them knowing that the reaction will not be the extreme one we are seeing today.
These lessons are Not gong to come gently... It took Europe ~200-500 years of protestant-catholic violence (within states or between them) to realize state religions cause more trouble than they are worth.
The fact is baby has to get his chili powder or he's not going to grow. The fact that he occasionally spits it back at us is an unfortunate fact that we live on the same planet, but either deal with it or regress to baby's level himself.
Its one thing to respect those who believe they may be wrong. Those who are certain they are right may need to be insulted to be brought into the truth. (Jesus-Pharisees.. and yes I know they ended up getting him killed. sometimes that is necessary)
In those cases the 'jokes' ARE meant to be taken personally, they are attacks on the beliefs/attitudes/action, because they is thought to be false/evil.
Could those cartoons have been better... certainly
Should they have insulted... I'd say yes
In any case, part of the issue is not just the insult, it is the fact that Muhammed is being depicted... same as Orthodox Jews would object to the Sistine Chapel, not because it is insulting God, but because it is depicting Him at all (they'd even object to my using God and not G_d)
|
On December 16 2010 11:56 chadissilent wrote:This pretty much explains it all: The lives of the south park creators were threatened before censoring this episode. Yet South Park has made fun of everyone and everything, including scenes of Jesus doing drugs. Do radical Christians threaten to bomb the White House, or do they shrug it off/ignore it?
That's why I hate terrorists, lol. They keep cencoring my cartoons!
It uses to exist on SPstudios until the episodes 200 and 201 but after that they had to remove it... also cencoring episode 201 fcking shit...
I still have super best friends uncencored on my comp though
|
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.
Sure, you can shout fire in a crowded theatre, but if there isn't a fire, you're going to be kicked out and banned for life. You lose your credibility and the right to go to that particular movie theatre. Is that not a punishment that sets an example for other people to not speak their mind? This example is terribly flawed.
|
United States5162 Posts
On December 17 2010 01:19 Megatronn 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. Sure, you can shout fire in a crowded theatre, but if there isn't a fire, you're going to be kicked out and banned for life. You lose your credibility and the right to go to that particular movie theatre. Is that not a punishment that sets an example for other people to not speak their mind? This example is terribly flawed.
It's punishment from society, not the government. The two are very different.
If the government decides that no one can criticize McDonald's or you go to jail you have very limited options. Either shut up or rot.
If society deems it unacceptable to criticize McDonald's the most they can do it shun you. You can still say whatever you want about McDonalds, and rather then being locked up in jail, now people just don't like you. Any attempts to imprison or hurt you are illegal, and you can speak your mind 'freely'. I say 'freely' because freedom of speech in not freedom from consequences, its freedom of consequences from the governement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
