Forums → WEPR → Issues with Islam
| 99 | 32596 |
I'm sure most people have heard of the ever infamous video, whose pilot was put onto Youtube, disgracing Islam.
Personally, I have not watched this video, and am not sure if there is another thread on this topic.
So, what is your opinion?
How should the U.S. react to having one of it's ambassoders and several others murdered?
Should the people who posted the video have it removed, fined, or given other punishments?
Where do we draw the line between freedom of speech, and hating against one's beliefs.
(I am personally not one for religion, but if a person has devoted their life to it, it must mean quite a large deal to them)
- 99 Replies
May I ask what the difference is? If we are continuing with Islam as an example, they not only don't want Mohammad shown badly (At all), they don't want him portrayed at all. How can you be critical of something, when you can not mention any of the negative points?
There's a blatant difference between saying an argument is a logical fallacy and calling the person perpertuating it ****ing moron.
So you are saying that these poor, innocent Muslims where just forced into murdering those big, evil diplomats who where in no way connected to the insults, besides their country of origin? I cannot comprehend the logic behind that. Lets just say that you are correct, and that they are provoked to a level that murder would somehow be a reasonable response, then why would they attack someone unrelated to the attack at all? It would be like finding out your wife slept with a Canadian, and then killing a random Canadian in anger.
No. What I am saying is, there would be no attack if there was no film. The film is the reason they protested and the reason they attacked the embassy. I am not condoning their action but merely pointing out why they did it.
What is so wrong with "hate speech"? You are not infringing on anyone's rights by making a cheap b movie showing a religious figure in a bad light. You are not infringing on the rights of anyone if you downright hate homosexuals, Muslims, Jews, or anything else, and you are not infringing on your rights to say so loudly. You are not infringing on anyone's rights to yell at soldier's funerals, you are not infringing on anyone's rights to accuse the president of being a Kenyan born Muslim. What right could thoughts and words damage?
You are, however, infringing upon the basic rights of men if you either act on any of those words and thoughts in a negative way or react to this thoughts in negative ways. A man stabbing someone for reading the Torah in public is just as bad as a man stabbing someone for insulting the Torah in public, while insulting the Torah and reading the Torah are both just harmless uses of freedom of speech.
In most of the world the debate between hate speech or free speech has been settled by the hate speech laws. In the United States, that debate has been settled. Under the First Amendment, newspapers and magazines can say what they like about minority groups and religions - even false, provocative or hateful things - without legal consequence.
In much of the developed world, one uses racial epithets at one's legal peril, one displays Nazi regalia and the other trappings of ethnic hatred at significant legal risk and one urges discrimination against religious minorities under threat of fine or imprisonment. Canada, Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India all have laws or have signed international conventions banning hate speech. Israel and France forbid the sale of Nazi items like swastikas and flags. It is a crime to deny the Holocaust in Canada, Germany and France.
The question is, should a liberal democracy take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack? Giving someone a "right" entails responsibility, just like giving someone a gun entails that person being responsible for it. Shooting off your mouth whatever you want to say without regard for consequences because of the thinking that the law will always protect you doesn't breed debate and openness. It breeds contempt and incidents like this. Then the whining started that the evil people you slurred are at fault. Well pardon me, but you should have thought about the words before using them. Just as the people reacting should be blamed, the person inflaming such sentiment have a part in it.
There's a blatant difference between saying an argument is a logical fallacy and calling the person perpertuating it ****ing moron.
Is there? Do the people who would shoot someone over a picture know this?
No. What I am saying is, there would be no attack if there was no film. The film is the reason they protested and the reason they attacked the embassy. I am not condoning their action but merely pointing out why they did it.
This is also an untruth. Would World War One have happened if Archduke Ferdinand was not assassinated? Many sources are stating it was per-planned anyway, the most you could claim of this is that it was simply a trigger. Without the video, the same thing would have happened.
In most of the world the debate between hate speech or free speech has been settled by the hate speech laws. In the United States, that debate has been settled. Under the First Amendment, newspapers and magazines can say what they like about minority groups and religions - even false, provocative or hateful things - without legal consequence.
Which is one of the reasons I love America so much.
In much of the developed world, one uses racial epithets at one's legal peril, one displays Nazi regalia and the other trappings of ethnic hatred at significant legal risk and one urges discrimination against religious minorities under threat of fine or imprisonment. Canada, Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India all have laws or have signed international conventions banning hate speech. Israel and France forbid the sale of Nazi items like swastikas and flags. It is a crime to deny the Holocaust in Canada, Germany and France.
Which is just another reason why America is better then everywhere else! USA! USA! USA!
The question is, should a liberal democracy take affirmative responsibility for protecting the atmosphere of mutual respect against certain forms of vicious attack?
Of course not. That isn't their job, this isn't some school yard where teachers go around correcting every bad behavior. What is bad about being a racist, if you don't act on it? Why does it matter if you fly a Nazi flag in your lawn and march around the neighborhood in a Nazi uniform? It doesn't matter, it hurts no one, why should they not be aloud to do it?
Giving someone a "right" entails responsibility, just like giving someone a gun entails that person being responsible for it. Shooting off your mouth whatever you want to say without regard for consequences because of the thinking that the law will always protect you doesn't breed debate and openness.
Yes, actually it does. Censorship of any kind, by definition, shuts off openness and debate. You should be able to say whatever you want, without legal repercussion, whenever you want. That is freedom. The very act of censorship blocks off ideals that someone doesn't like, be it racism, political decent, or opinion on a movie.
Now please tell me, why should offensive movies be blocked? What is "offensive"? Who decides what is offensive?
It breeds contempt and incidents like this.
Are you saying that the middle east would simply stay peaceful forever if no one put a video like this? You are simply blaming the victim. It isn't the person who made the video's fault if they get attacked, it is the maniac attacking him's fault. Do you agree with that?
Then the whining started that the evil people you slurred are at fault.
They are at fault, completely and utterly, fully and totally. You don't kill people over a video trailer. Not even insane people kill over a video trailer. Blaming someone for making a video trailer would be like blaming WWII on a milkshake dispute.
Well pardon me, but you should have thought about the words before using them. Just as the people reacting should be blamed, the person inflaming such sentiment have a part in it.
Just like the girl wearing a short skirt and revealing shirt was just asking to get *****, right? So logically, she should get part of the blame! Pardon me if she gets *****, she should have thought about what she was wearing before she went out like that. Right?
Is there? Do the people who would shoot someone over a picture know this?
It's not about a picture. The slur was directed towards their religion. It struck at the heart of their beliefs.
This is also an untruth. Would World War One have happened if Archduke Ferdinand was not assassinated? Many sources are stating it was per-planned anyway, the most you could claim of this is that it was simply a trigger. Without the video, the same thing would have happened.
Red herring. The protests are about fighting against degrading the Prophet; clearly without the film there would be no such degradation and hence sentiment. Using a historical event that has no common features as an example doesn't do your case any good.
Which is just another reason why America is better then everywhere else! USA! USA! USA!
Also a reason why you're drawing flak from the Muslim world now. Good on you guys.
Of course not. That isn't their job, this isn't some school yard where teachers go around correcting every bad behavior. What is bad about being a racist, if you don't act on it? Why does it matter if you fly a Nazi flag in your lawn and march around the neighborhood in a Nazi uniform? It doesn't matter, it hurts no one, why should they not be aloud to do it?
It is the right of people even under your Constitution to have the freedom of not being slurred. It does hurt people, just not physically (as though that's the only definition of hurt); it hurts their beliefs, it pours dirt on what thry hold dear. It doesn't matter if you wear a Nazi uniform; it matters if you espouse such values.
Yes, actually it does. Censorship of any kind, by definition, shuts off openness and debate. You should be able to say whatever you want, without legal repercussion, whenever you want. That is freedom. The very act of censorship blocks off ideals that someone doesn't like, be it racism, political decent, or opinion on a movie.
Now please tell me, why should offensive movies be blocked? What is "offensive"? Who decides what is offensive?
I don't value the "right" to slur someone as a right. You're being protected under the law for doing someone harm mentally. Offensive firms are firms that are overtly racist, etc. There's no rule for blanket censorship; it's case by case. Offensive films should be blocked because they degrade the dignity of people and the freedom of them to remain unsoiled and unharmed by your words.
Are you saying that the middle east would simply stay peaceful forever if no one put a video like this? You are simply blaming the victim. It isn't the person who made the video's fault if they get attacked, it is the maniac attacking him's fault. Do you agree with that?
Red herring again. The ME is certainly not a peaceful place; BUT without the film it would be a notch calmer than it is now. Claiming the general non peaceful atmosphere as a reason to say such things is not a reason but a poor cover. It is the person's fault. He made the video, expect a response. It's as absurd to say that an action won't beget a reaction.
Again if you read, I don't condone the murder. But that doesn't give people a reason to slur an entire religion in such ways.
They are at fault, completely and utterly, fully and totally. You don't kill people over a video trailer. Not even insane people kill over a video trailer. Blaming someone for making a video trailer would be like blaming WWII on a milkshake dispute.
Again red herring and bad analogy. And please read my words again. I dot condone the murders; yet you van hardly expect a region already incensed at America to go quiet if someone slurs them. They are at fault for perpetuating the murder itself; the film director is at fault for putting up such a film which started the ball rolling.
Just like the girl wearing a short skirt and revealing shirt was just asking to get *****, right? So logically, she should get part of the blame! Pardon me if she gets *****, she should have thought about what she was wearing before she went out like that. Right?
This is again a bad example. Rapists already have it in mind to do what they want. A Federal Commission On Crime of Violence study found that provocative behaviour only factored in 4.4% of ****. In fact most rapists simply cannot recall what their victims were wearing.
It's not about a picture. The slur was directed towards their religion. It struck at the heart of their beliefs.
I thought you just said we can go against their beliefs as much as we want, as long as we don't go against the person? Or something to that effect? After all, your not insulting them?
And after that....Have you actually seen the trailer this was all about?
Red herring. The protests are about fighting against degrading the Prophet; clearly without the film there would be no such degradation and hence sentiment. Using a historical event that has no common features as an example doesn't do your case any good.
I fail to see the differences. The middle east was a powder barrel, much like WWI was. As I said, there is also the fact that it may have been per-planned further leading to the suggestion the video has little to do with the actual riots.
Again red herring and bad analogy. And please read my words again. I dot condone the murders; yet you van hardly expect a region already incensed at America to go quiet if someone slurs them. They are at fault for perpetuating the murder itself; the film director is at fault for putting up such a film which started the ball rolling.
So what are you blaming him for, in exact words? It sure sounds like you are blaming them for the incident. Are you, or are you not, blaming the guy who made the videos?
This is again a bad example. Rapists already have it in mind to do what they want.
Since the Middle East was best friends with the US before this video came out? And, while I am by no means an expert on ****, aren't most rapes more of a crime of passion in the heat of the moment things? Or maybe we should just blame the **** victim of getting the ball rolling?
The percentage doesn't have to do with anything, that would be like saying "There is no way that this started over a video! Most murders occur in whatever they occur in!". We are talking cases where it does happen, so I am not sure why you even mentioned it.
I thought you just said we can go against their beliefs as much as we want, as long as we don't go against the person? Or something to that effect? After all, your not insulting them?
And after that....Have you actually seen the trailer this was all about?
No I said you can go against the belief tonthe extent that we do not insult it and the person. Using such a film is insulting not just the religion but all the people who adhere to it.
Nope, blocked, but I do know people who have before it got shut down and I do know people in other countries who have.
I fail to see the differences. The middle east was a powder barrel, much like WWI was. As I said, there is also the fact that it may have been per-planned further leading to the suggestion the video has little to do with the actual riots.
There is a difference. We have evidence that WWI might be preplanned but we have no evidence for this case. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; if you can't furnish them, your theory is merely a possible hypothesis without backing.
So what are you blaming him for, in exact words? It sure sounds like you are blaming them for the incident. Are you, or are you not, blaming the guy who made the videos?
It was spelt out crystal clear. I blame the director for starting the issue by spreading such views, and I also blame the murderers for carrying out the act. There is no condition staring that either side just be absolutely right or wrong.
Since the Middle East was best friends with the US before this video came out? And, while I am by no means an expert on ****, aren't most rapes more of a crime of passion in the heat of the moment things? Or maybe we should just blame the **** victim of getting the ball rolling?Â
They never were best of friends. Yet we now have nations like Malaysia an Indonesia which maintain cordial relations with the US having protests as well. Without the film there would definitely be a simmering tension which has been kept well under control, yet it is because such a film appears which sparked the actual protests. There were anti US feelings, but the film was the spark that caused such sentiment to explode.
**** is an act of violence expressed through sex, but is not primarily about sex. There is no single theory that conclusively explains the causes of sexual violence; the motives of perpetrators can be multi-factorial and are the subject of debate. Researchers have attempted to explain the motivations in terms of socioeconomics, anger, power, sadism, sexual pleasure, psychopathy, ethical standards, attitudes toward the victims and evolutionary pressures. **** is not mostly or even solely about passion.
The percentage doesn't have to do with anything, that would be like saying "There is no way that this started over a video! Most murders occur in whatever they occur in!". We are talking cases where it does happen, so I am not sure why you even mentioned it.
It's just to disprove your statement that provocative clothing is such an important factor in ****. so in response to the case at hand, yes a person is reponsible for their words, he uttered them, he is accountable for them.
No I said you can go against the belief tonthe extent that we do not insult it and the person. Using such a film is insulting not just the religion but all the people who adhere to it.
Nope, blocked, but I do know people who have before it got shut down and I do know people in other countries who have.
You claim this video is highly offensive, but you have not actually seen it? I could kind of guess from the way you talk about it that you have not actually seen it.
Basically it is a really, really bad film. It almost makes you want to start a riot. The camera man must have been drunk, the plot is incoherent, and the actors act like they are in a separate movie. Because they kind of thought they where...
Take the scene where Muhammad is introduced. There is a man in a cheap beard talking to a bald guy about how his son had a baby of two years old (He had been dead six years), and then the guy in the beard told him to keep it and raise it, even as a slave. "But what should I call him?" says the bald guy. Then the man in the beard "Speaks", however his mouth doesn't line up with what he is saying, the speech is obviously dubbed in. Which is one of the major problems.
You see, I had read something on Wikipedia about it being a normal movie, with the anti-Muslim stuff dubbed in afterwords. At first I thought "Well that is unlikely, after all how could you form a coherent plot! That was probably stated to protect the actors!". Then I saw the trailer. It...really was dubbed in. Badly. Yugioh -the Abridged series did a far better job of dubbing then they did. It was just random things happening- I can't tell what is going on- with references to Mohammad being added poorly. I can't even see how this is offensive, or how anyone can finish it. After all, all the actors are doing something completely different than what the dub said, it would be about as offensive as taking a Loony-Tunes movie and calling Bugs "Muhammad" the whole time, without changing anything else.
Why do you assume that the video is not fit to actually be seen- if you have never seen it?
There is a difference. We have evidence that WWI might be preplanned but we have no evidence for this case. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; if you can't furnish them, your theory is merely a possible hypothesis without backing.
Like, for example, a statement from the Libyan president saying so? (Hope I got that link right XD) on NBC? We do have evidence, and I am insulted that you would accuse me of acting without it.
It was spelt out crystal clear. I blame the director for starting the issue by spreading such views, and I also blame the murderers for carrying out the act. There is no condition staring that either side just be absolutely right or wrong.
Such views, that you have never actually seen? While I do act with facts, you seem to be walking blind my friend. You are basing the entire argument that this video is meant to inflict hatred, but you have not seen it? How can you base something of off ignorance like that?
They never were best of friends. Yet we now have nations like Malaysia an Indonesia which maintain cordial relations with the US having protests as well. Without the film there would definitely be a simmering tension which has been kept well under control, yet it is because such a film appears which sparked the actual protests. There were anti US feelings, but the film was the spark that caused such sentiment to explode.
Exactly. The video, at most, will only act as a trigger. The protests would happen weather the video did or not, it was a bow ready to fire. It wasn't the video that started massive protests, it was the underlying tension.
**** is an act of violence expressed through sex, but is not primarily about sex. There is no single theory that conclusively explains the causes of sexual violence; the motives of perpetrators can be multi-factorial and are the subject of debate. Researchers have attempted to explain the motivations in terms of socioeconomics, anger, power, sadism, sexual pleasure, psychopathy, ethical standards, attitudes toward the victims and evolutionary pressures. **** is not mostly or even solely about passion.
Ill look up when I am more awake studies finding weather or not the rapist had planned ahead in most cases (Wow. If I stay on these forums too long, the FBI will probably bust down my door for all the strange searches.)
Now I look up....And it looks like most rapes are planned ahead. But then of course, something like 20% are not, and since we are not saying ALL rapes are caused by this (Just as all violence is not caused by this video), it is still an ok metaphor.
It's just to disprove your statement that provocative clothing is such an important factor in ****. so in response to the case at hand, yes a person is reponsible for their words, he uttered them, he is accountable for them.
I didn't say "It was a provocative factor in all rapes" or "most rapes", I just said what if provocative clothing was part of a single ****? Or are you going to go out and say that it is never a part of a ****?
You are responsible for your words. But are you responsible for the actions (and over actions) of others, especially those you never thought would hear it?
Now to add to the discussion a bit. Does anyone know that is going on with the counter riots? I read about them a little, apparently people don't like letting terrorist riot on the streets, and thus have formed their own anti-terrorist demonstration. Does anyone have any more information on this?
You claim this video is highly offensive, but you have not actually seen it? I could kind of guess from the way you talk about it that you have not actually seen it.
Basically it is a really, really bad film. It almost makes you want to start a riot. The camera man must have been drunk, the plot is incoherent, and the actors act like they are in a separate movie. Because they kind of thought they where...
Take the scene where Muhammad is introduced. There is a man in a cheap beard talking to a bald guy about how his son had a baby of two years old (He had been dead six years), and then the guy in the beard told him to keep it and raise it, even as a slave. "But what should I call him?" says the bald guy. Then the man in the beard "Speaks", however his mouth doesn't line up with what he is saying, the speech is obviously dubbed in. Which is one of the major problems.
You see, I had read something on Wikipedia about it being a normal movie, with the anti-Muslim stuff dubbed in afterwords. At first I thought "Well that is unlikely, after all how could you form a coherent plot! That was probably stated to protect the actors!". Then I saw the trailer. It...really was dubbed in. Badly. Yugioh -the Abridged series did a far better job of dubbing then they did. It was just random things happening- I can't tell what is going on- with references to Mohammad being added poorly. I can't even see how this is offensive, or how anyone can finish it. After all, all the actors are doing something completely different than what the dub said, it would be about as offensive as taking a Loony-Tunes movie and calling Bugs "Muhammad" the whole time, without changing anything else.
Why do you assume that the video is not fit to actually be seen- if you have never seen it?
Yes I haven't seen it. But I have stated that I know what is inside it. A quick Google search and chat takes care of that very well. And so what if it was only dubbed in later? The actress herself has filed a lawsuit; the actors thought it was a film on desert warriors, the director put in the dubbing later. That doesn't absove him of anything.
You haven't seen most rapes, or WW yet you too make statements on these, so I hardly see it as an issue that I didn't watch the films, yet know what is inside it.
Like, for example, a statement from the Libyan president saying so? (Hope I got that link right XD) on NBC? We do have evidence, and I am insulted that you would accuse me of acting without it.
He merely said foreigners could have planned it. He didn't say whether it was planned before or after the attack. And in either case, even if it was preplanned, how would you explain the mass spontaneous worldwide protest? Preplanned?
Such views, that you have never actually seen? While I do act with facts, you seem to be walking blind my friend. You are basing the entire argument that this video is meant to inflict hatred, but you have not seen it? How can you base something of off ignorance like that?
Actually no, I am basing it ok news sites such as Huffington Post and NYT who have published what is inside the film.
Might I also remind you about he statements you make about WWI and ****; you're in no position to claim my statement are not backed just because have never seen it.
Now I look up....And it looks like most rapes are planned ahead. But then of course, something like 20% are not, and since we are not saying ALL rapes are caused by this (Just as all violence is not caused by this video), it is still an ok metaphor.
And the proof apart from Libya that the protests were all preplanned?
I didn't say "It was a provocative factor in all rapes" or "most rapes", I just said what if provocative clothing was part of a single ****? Or are you going to go out and say that it is never a part of a ****?
Oh no, I wouldn't argue with Thr studies ibhave quoted myself. Would just like to point out to you your impressions on ****, that's all.
You are responsible for your words. But are you responsible for the actions (and over actions) of others, especially those you never thought would hear it?
You are responsible for inciting such actions yes. Because such words do act as a blatant provocation.
Now to add to the discussion a bit. Does anyone know that is going on with the counter riots? I read about them a little, apparently people don't like letting terrorist riot on the streets, and thus have formed their own anti-terrorist demonstration. Does anyone have any more information on this?
Muslims angered by the extremist minority. It's all on the news and even in last week's Economist.
It is also important to state that the attacks likely had nothing to do with the video, and that no one actually "rotesting" the video actually saw the video (There was a youtube trailer, it had only been actually screened a dozen times in the US.). Taking down the "video" would get no advantage, while violating the rights of US citizens.
If you view the pictures of the riot, they are protesting against the degradation of Islam. All over their placards.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 â" 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.
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.
You must be logged in to post a reply!