Forums → WEPR → Issues with Islam

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?

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.

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.

There's a blatant difference between saying an argument is a logical fallacy and calling the person perpertuating it ****ing moron.

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.

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.

Is there? Do the people who would shoot someone over a picture know this?

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.

Which is just another reason why America is better then everywhere else! USA! USA! USA!

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?

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?

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?

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.

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?

It's not about a picture. The slur was directed towards their religion. It struck at the heart of their beliefs.

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.

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.

This is again a bad example. Rapists already have it in mind to do what they want.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

It is also important to state that the attacks likely had nothing to do with the video, and that no one actually &quotrotesting" 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.

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.

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.

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).

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).

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.

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.

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

And so? We should allow such actions just because?

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Nice plagiarism there.

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

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.