Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

Issues with Islam

Posted Sep 22, '12 at 3:46am

NoNameC68

NoNameC68

5,069 posts

Knight

Americans. You want free speech, yet don't want to acknowledge that sometimes, free speech stirs up the hornet's nest. Suddenly it is solely the fault of others that they are reacting to a blatant smearing.

It's way, way, way, way, too easy to provoke said extremists. When drawing a household appliance that speaks, "I'm the real image of Muhammad" nets you a bunch of death threats, you just have to accept that the level of censorship the extremists demand is far too much.

But let's suppose someone rule 34'd Muhammad (I'm sure it's already been done plenty of times already), should such action be illegal since it's so provocative? Should the crazy pastor have been arrested for threatening to burn the Korans? Should burning the book be illegal? If it's wrong to burn a book, what about flags? Could we censor political statements that throw people into fits of homicidal rage?

I believe it should be perfectly legal to speak out, even if it is provocative. The video is on the internet, so it's not even like someone went up to the extremists and provoked them face to face and caused an instant reaction, those who acted out had time to think through their actions.

We Americans have few speech issues warrant government attention. I'm even willing to go as far as saying Obama's bill that bans protests of soldier's funerals went way too far.

If you call someone's mother a ***** and said person punches you in the fact, legally, it is the other person who is at fault. However, such action on your part caused such an action to happen, and many people will agree that the person who made the insult had it coming. If you call someone's mother a ***** and said person punches someone who had nothing to do with the confrontation, then it's completely the fault of the person throwing the punches.

We can NOT let extremists scare us into censorship. America was founded on the ideas that too much protection will lead to totalitarianism, or an overgrown government. The government is supposed to be there to protect the rights and lives of the people, and the same applies to those who use their freedoms. If someone says something nasty about Islam and an extremists kills a bunch of people, then the extremist group should be handled by the government. Most of the issues with free speech are coming from butt hurt *******s who have been indoctrinated to hate those who are different from themselves that don't even live in America (or rarely kill on American soil).

There are some very disgusting, immoral, groups out there in the US. The fact they exist is just sickening. In many countries, such groups might be illegal. In America, these groups are protected by the first amendment, as long as they don't actually act out in an illegal way. Even though these people get to speak, and occasionally recruit/find others to join them in their preaching, the majority of people (who morally good) ignore them, or counter their disgusting messages. There is no actual problem with these groups existing. Such groups include the KKK and other racist organizations, as well as a group that is trying to legalize pedophilia (I forgot the name of the group). They're disgusting, but we allow them the freedom to speak and overall things are okay.

The reason we allow freedom of speech in almost every form is because we believe drawing a line between what is and is not too hateful or too immoral leads to censorship that silences the wrong people. It's a slipper slope.

 

Posted Sep 22, '12 at 3:56am

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,842 posts

Knight

But let's suppose someone rule 34'd Muhammad (I'm sure it's already been done plenty of times already), should such action be illegal since it's so provocative? Should the crazy pastor have been arrested for threatening to burn the Korans? Should burning the book be illegal? If it's wrong to burn a book, what about flags? Could we censor political statements that throw people into fits of homicidal rage?

Isn't this all a big slippery slope?

I believe it should be perfectly legal to speak out, even if it is provocative. The video is on the internet, so it's not even like someone went up to the extremists and provoked them face to face and caused an instant reaction, those who acted out had time to think through their actions.

Then don't condemn them for burning flags. Don't condemn them for showing such hate for America. Condemn them solely for attacking the compound. But don't condemn anything else.

If you call someone's mother a ***** and said person punches you in the fact, legally, it is the other person who is at fault. However, such action on your part caused such an action to happen, and many people will agree that the person who made the insult had it coming. If you call someone's mother a ***** and said person punches someone who had nothing to do with the confrontation, then it's completely the fault of the person throwing the punches.

No one is condoning the murders. People are attacking the director though.

We can NOT let extremists scare us into censorship. America was founded on the ideas that too much protection will lead to totalitarianism, or an overgrown government. The government is supposed to be there to protect the rights and lives of the people, and the same applies to those who use their freedoms. If someone says something nasty about Islam and an extremists kills a bunch of people, then the extremist group should be handled by the government. Most of the issues with free speech are coming from butt hurt *******s who have been indoctrinated to hate those who are different from themselves that don't even live in America (or rarely kill on American soil).

Again no one mentioned censorship on a grand scale. No one is saying such extremists groups should go scot free. What people are saying, including me, is that it is right for the producer to be punished for his actions.

Most of the issues with free speech are coming from butt hurt *******s who have been indoctrinated to hate those who are different from themselves that don't even live in America (or rarely kill on American soil).

And so? We should allow such actions just because?

In many countries, such groups might be illegal. In America, these groups are protected by the first amendment, as long as they don't actually act out in an illegal way. Even though these people get to speak, and occasionally recruit/find others to join them in their preaching, the majority of people (who morally good) ignore them, or counter their disgusting messages. There is no actual problem with these groups existing. Such groups include the KKK and other racist organizations, as well as a group that is trying to legalize pedophilia (I forgot the name of the group). They're disgusting, but we allow them the freedom to speak and overall things are okay.

Well, things have clearly showed that they're not okay. The actions  of one person has led to the generalization of all Americans as such by extremists elsewhere. Freedom for the sake of freedom as a value espoused for its supposed intrinsic ideals is parochial. With freedom comes responsibility.

 

Posted Sep 22, '12 at 4:20am

NoNameC68

NoNameC68

5,069 posts

Knight

Then don't condemn them for burning flags. Don't condemn them for showing such hate for America. Condemn them solely for attacking the compound. But don't condemn anything else.

I think it's fair to criticize them for burning flags, but it wouldn't be fair for us to stop them, or anyone who burns flags.

What people are saying, including me, is that it is right for the producer to be punished for his actions.

What I'm saying is that it's not right for the producer to be punished, even if the ones using violence are being punished along with him.

And so? We should allow such actions just because?

We should not allow such actions, but we should not prevent such actions through taking away anyone's freedom of speech.

Freedom for the sake of freedom as a value espoused for its supposed intrinsic ideals is parochial

I, as well as many others, preach freedom for the lack of omniscience people and/or organizations. There is no all knowing person, nor is there an all knowing group. We preach freedom because everywhere in which we use government to restrict such for protection often leads to unwanted consequences. The only time the government should step in is when it's absolutely necessary. The reason we want as much freedom of speech as possible is so that we can be more certain that nobody abuses the power to decide what is and is not acceptable to say, whether it be intentional or not, and whether it be for the good of the many or the good of the few.

If such rules exist (such as yelling "fire" in a theater), they must be as clear and concise as possible. Instead of trying to figure out how far speech can go and trying to prevent illegal actions, we merely criminalize the illegal actions and punish those who cross the line (because it's a much finer line).

Well, things have clearly showed that they're not okay.

Things are only not okay outside of the US relating to these extremist Muslims. Other than that, there are few issues related to free speech that aren't handled at a local level. As I said, there are hate groups out there that are allowed to speak, but as long as they don't actually do anything illegal or preach for people to do harm to others, they aren't really getting anywhere since the vastly overwhelming majority of people are there countering there every word, keeping them from getting anywhere with said speech. It's because the overwhelming majority of people in America are good that such speech from hate groups come off as nothing more than useless words.

 

Posted Sep 22, '12 at 4:35am

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,842 posts

Knight

I think it's fair to criticize them for burning flags, but it wouldn't be fair for us to stop them, or anyone who burns flags.

Wrong word condemn. Don't ask the government to go after them.

We should not allow such actions, but we should not prevent such actions through taking away anyone's freedom of speech.

What I'm saying is that it's not right for the producer to be punished, even if the ones using violence are being punished along with him.

Even those who love the First Amendment should be interested in at least understanding the things that can be said on the other side, if only to reinforce their sense of what's distinctive about America's commitments. A large proportion of the other advanced democracies in the world combine a commitment to free speech with rules prohibiting hate speech. Isn't it worth considering how they do this? And why? No one is burning the constitution here. We're just trying to think about it.

Democracies like Britain, France, Germany, Denmark, Canada and New Zealand all prohibit hate speech of various kinds. They do so for what they think are good reasons. It is worth thinking about those reasons. Are they good reasons that (from an American First Amendment perspective) are just not strong enough to stand up against our overwhelmingly powerful commitment to free speech? Or are they simply bad reasons?

We juxtapose the freedom of speech with the freedom to maintain one's dignity, a person's basic social status, his or her being treated as an ordinary member of society in good standing, his or her being included in the ordinary business of society. A person's dignity is damaged, then, when he or she is publicly defamed or dehumanized, or when he or she is perceived as belonging to a group all of whose members are defamed or dehumanized. In parts of Miami some restaurant signs used to say, 'Jews and dogs not welcome here.' A legal prohibition on such signs would be aimed at securing the inclusiveness of the social environment against such attempts to undermine it.

The reason we want as much freedom of speech as possible is so that we can be more certain that nobody abuses the power to decide what is and is not acceptable to say, whether it be intentional or not, and whether it be for the good of the many or the good of the few.

At the cost of people suffering from hate speech? This is all noble and all, except for the people who are subject to hate speech.

We can draw on the legislative and regulatory experience of the dozens of democracies that already do this " that have enacted well-drafted hate speech laws and have amended and refined them over the years. They define hate speech in terms of the manner of speaking (threateningly, abusively) and in terms of its intended object (to stir up hatred against some group). And the legislation is often at pains to identify modes of robust speech and debate that are not prohibited.

For example, the British Public Order Act stipulates that 'a person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if (a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or (b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.' The statute defines various defenses like talking in a private place or being unaware of the likelihood that the speech would stir up racial hatred.

Things are only not okay outside of the US relating to these extremist Muslims. Other than that, there are few issues related to free speech that aren't handled at a local level. As I said, there are hate groups out there that are allowed to speak, but as long as they don't actually do anything illegal or preach for people to do harm to others, they aren't really getting anywhere since the vastly overwhelming majority of people are there countering there every word, keeping them from getting anywhere with said speech. It's because the overwhelming majority of people in America are good that such speech from hate groups come off as nothing more than useless words.

And foreign affairs pertaining to America are to be ignored because it didn't occur on American soil; yet are clearly linked to Americans? That is hogwash.

 

Posted Sep 22, '12 at 4:50am

GhostOfMatrix

GhostOfMatrix

11,687 posts

Knight

 

Posted Sep 22, '12 at 4:57am

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,842 posts

Knight

Yep. Meant to link, but I can't on my phone.

 

Posted Sep 22, '12 at 6:03am

HahiHa

HahiHa

4,939 posts

Knight

Freedom of speech is nice and all, but that guy who made the movie cheated on the actors he hired and put them in equal danger, and simply for that he should have already been arrested.

It shouldn't be forbidden to amke jokes about others and show humour etc, it is ok for someone to make a joke about Islam or whatever when among friends or something like that; but it is not ok to publicly spread hate and lies about others; this is definitely going far off the limit of free speech, and even if the government does nothing, the people should be able to accuse him of inciting hate and insulting others religion; and he should be trialed for this as he deserves. I don't know about you, but if this still goes under freedom of speech, it's closer to anarchy than anything I know.

 

Posted Sep 22, '12 at 8:39am

NoNameC68

NoNameC68

5,069 posts

Knight

A large proportion of the other advanced democracies in the world combine a commitment to free speech with rules prohibiting hate speech. Isn't it worth considering how they do this? And why? No one is burning the constitution here. We're just trying to think about it.

It should NEVER be a crime to merely offend someone. I can think of literally no exceptions at all. Banning speech because people are offended is, therefore, out of the question. It's not offense that makes speech scary, it's the fact that such ideas may spread to other people. Should we outlaw the spread of bad ideas?

We juxtapose the freedom of speech with the freedom to maintain one's dignity, a person's basic social status, his or her being treated as an ordinary member of society in good standing, his or her being included in the ordinary business of society.

In America, you can be as racist as you want. Racism, for the most part, is dead. In some areas, there is still racism, don't get me wrong, but it has little to do with free speech and more with how people quietly live their lives. You don't need to prohibit speech to end racism.

In parts of Miami some restaurant signs used to say, 'Jews and dogs not welcome here.' A legal prohibition on such signs would be aimed at securing the inclusiveness of the social environment against such attempts to undermine it.

I have a HUGE problem with this. I would avoid such shops and boycott them. I would encourage others to boycott such places. If people don't care, or if they agree with the signs, then there's nothing I can do. I believe businesses should be allowed to serve whomever they want. If they want to be racist, they can be racist. I'm completely against it, and I'll do whatever is in my power to peacefully ruin them, but it's not up to the government to get involved unless there's actual violence or coercion (outside of property rights).

I'm not saying we should simply allow racism to exist, but we can find ways to fight racism without prohibiting free speech.

At the cost of people suffering from hate speech? This is all noble and all, except for the people who are subject to hate speech.

Making people feel bad should never be a crime - ever. If there are problems with hate, you need to fight it yourself without relying on the government's use of coercion.

Indeed, the legal ban is itself a way of speaking out against it.

-JEREMY WALDRON (Opinion Pages)

Banning hate speech is a way of speaking against hate speech

is like

pulling a gun out in the middle of a debate and telling the opponent they can't make their argument.

It shouldn't be forbidden to amke jokes about others and show humour etc, it is ok for someone to make a joke about Islam or whatever when among friends or something like that; but it is not ok to publicly spread hate and lies about others; this is definitely going far off the limit of free speech, and even if the government does nothing, the people should be able to accuse him of inciting hate and insulting others religion; and he should be trialed for this as he deserves. I don't know about you, but if this still goes under freedom of speech, it's closer to anarchy than anything I know.

Religion deserves to be insulted, because religion is redicilous. (see what i did?)

Hate speech, know where it gets you? Not very far, because most people are going to stand in the way of hate speech and counter it in some way. You just don't need the government.

 

Posted Sep 22, '12 at 9:11am

nichodemus

nichodemus

11,842 posts

Knight

It should NEVER be a crime to merely offend someone. I can think of literally no exceptions at all. Banning speech because people are offended is, therefore, out of the question. It's not offense that makes speech scary, it's the fact that such ideas may spread to other people. Should we outlaw the spread of bad ideas?

We have very different value systems. In fact, most of the world has a different one from you guys. In our eyes, yes offending someone is offensive for lack of a better word, and at such a level is a crime.

In America, you can be as racist as you want. Racism, for the most part, is dead. In some areas, there is still racism, don't get me wrong, but it has little to do with free speech and more with how people quietly live their lives. You don't need to prohibit speech to end racism.

Racism is still alive in this world. A BBC survey showed ethnic minority applicants still face major discrimination in the jobs market CVs from six fictitious candidates - who were given traditionally white, black African or Muslim names - were sent to 50 firms by Radio Five Live. White 'candidates' were far more likely to be given an interview than similarly qualified black or Asian 'names'. The employers targeted by the undercover survey were selected at random from newspaper adverts and recruitment websites. Letters from the 'black' candidates, Abu Olasemi and Yinka Olatunde, had a 13% success rate.

From 1981 to 1997, the United States Department of Agriculture discriminated against tens of thousands of African American farmers, denying loans provided to white farmers in similar circumstances. The discrimination was the subject of the Pigford v. Glickman lawsuit brought by members of the National Black Farmers Association, which resulted in two settlement agreements of $1.25 billion in 1999 and of $1.15 billion in 2009.

but it's not up to the government to get involved unless there's actual violence or coercion (outside of property rights).

I'm not saying we should simply allow racism to exist, but we can find ways to fight racism without prohibiting free speech.

The two are exclusive at many times. White supremists claim that whites are superior and should have certain privileges. This clashes with the right of equality for all citizens as enshrined in the Constitution. They clash. Racism cannot be fought with soft means, it needs to be tackled head on by the government. The government exists to protect all people regardless of race.

Religion deserves to be insulted, because religion is redicilous. (see what i did?)

Hate speech, know where it gets you? Not very far, because most people are going to stand in the way of hate speech and counter it in some way. You just don't need the government.

Religion doesn't deserve to be insulted. Frankly, such statements are disgusting. Religion, if it doesn't espouse violence, doesn't need to be shot down. Yes, most texts have some reference to smoting infidels, yet if this is not taught or espoused, as most congregations do not teach as such, than they do not deserve to be slurred in public.

Making people feel bad should never be a crime - ever. If there are problems with hate, you need to fight it yourself without relying on the government's use of coercion.

Tell that to the blacks in the 1960s. Or the Chinese in Malaysia today. Or just about in every continent. That the government should allow such racism to exist and not step in to protect citizens, because people can be relied on to sensibly combat it.

Banning hate speech is a way of speaking against hate speech

is like

pulling a gun out in the middle of a debate and telling the opponent they can't make their argument.

Saying that you're better because of skin colour, and therefore others shouldn't deserve to get a job isn't a matter of debate anymore, but law and equality.

 

Posted Sep 22, '12 at 9:46am

Avorne

Avorne

3,224 posts

I could very well say that anyone who practices Islam should be locked up or sent to rehabilitation camps. Do I? No, because I believe both in the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion, people have the right to say and practice what they like. Equally though, this means that other people have just as much right to criticize and disagree with the views of others, even if their disagreement is viewed as 'insulting' it's still that persons opinion. Once you start saying "you're free to say/believe as you want... as long as it's not X" you're encroaching upon and eroding that freedom. Anyone should be allowed to shout as loudly as they like about their views but nobody should be allowed to get away with physical violence because somebody disagrees with them.

 
Reply to Issues with Islam

You must be logged in to post a reply!