"Innocence of Muslims" film

[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]
What disgusts me utterly is that you people are defending a man who, in peddling his own extremist views, has WITTINGLY and WILLINGLY endangered scores of people's lives. Nakoula tried to be as offensive as he possibly could, to provoke the most hostile reaction he possibly could. He is just as much a terrorist as the people who attacked American embassies are.[/QUOTE]

Words don't hurt, at least not physically. The filmmakers are idiots, for sure. Their film is ignorant and despicable, but I will defend their right speak their mind and make their idiocy a public display.

The question is, how far are we willing to allow freedom of speech? I can understand bringing charges for calling out on harm or violence against Muslims, but all this guy did was make a mockery of their religion. It's stupid on his part knowing the reaction of the radicals in the Middle East, but for how long do we have to bow to them and make sure nothing offends them? Excuse me if this offends anyone, but what if someone inf the Middle East made a made a film depicting Jesus receiving fellatio from the Virgin Mary? Most likely the Western World will ignore it, and yes perhaps some radical over here might try to do something stupid and attack a Mosque, but at the very least we know that we keep our nutcases on the line and bring them up on charges if they try to bring harm upon others. Why can't they do the same?

Just last year, two mosques in Holland were drenched in pig-blood, and another was torched, leading to the death of the imam. The violence is not a one-way thing, even if the there is an imbalance.

@YV:


First of all, you are lying: "However, the maker of that film did not violate a US law and therefore he can publish and show it wherever he finds other idiots who show and publish it and we have to live with it."

That is not true. The filmmaker is a convicted felon who was barred by the terms of his parole from using computers or the internet in any way. By publishing this film, he violated his parole.

Furthermore, it's pretty sad of you to come up with the line "You are clearly a victim of political correctness running wild and not allowing you to look at any issue with an open mind." The irony of you accusing me of arguing in a dishonest way! In case you've had your head buried in the sand for these past 20 years, YV, there is no longer any such thing as "political correctness" - if anything, bashing muslims is the new "political correctness". In case you hadn't noticed, YV, Austria, Denmark and Holland have already had governments in which Islam-bashing far-right parties were represented. If there was ever a time when criticism of islam wasn't allowed, it's been gone for well over a decade. You can hardly look at a newspaper or a tv-station without coming across some column bashing muslims.

I don't approve of the violence. But I, in stark contrast to you, do understand that people become frustrated when they've been called terrorists and terrorist supporters by the entire west for eleven years, after a long history of the west using islamism to fight the communists. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, but I already know you aren't. Micrówave I can respect - he is an ass, but he has the courage to stand up for his views. *You* on the other hand, will say whatever is politically correct at the time, even while accusing me of being a victim of political correctness.

Just to save you the trouble of having to think for yourself, YV: if my remarks were born of political correctness, no one would dare contradict them, except perhaps Micrówave. The fact that I hold a minority opinion here is proof that you are spreading bullshit when accusing me of "political correctness". I think you already knew this, but are just too "dishonest" to admit it.

[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]
Just last year, two mosques in Holland were drenched in pig-blood, and another was torched, leading to the death of the imam. The violence is not a one-way thing, even if the there is an imbalance.[/QUOTE]
As I mentioned, there are nut cases everywhere, but least it's far more likely to see Dutch authorities launching an investigation to find the murderers of the Imam along with the culprits of those who destroyed the mosque, than Middle Eastern authorities putting a stop to the riots on Western embassies.

[QUOTE][b]Mr.Jingles wrote:[/b]
Words don't hurt, at least not physically.[/QUOTE]
Bingo.

Words are the single most powerful things we have. They can be the most empowering, and the most destructive. Words shape ideas, ideas shape mentality, mentality shapes action, action shapes the group, the group shapes culture.

Bar none, words are the epitome of powerful.

Iranian President and H.M.I.C Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's thoughts...

[QUOTE]
"Likewise, we condemn any type of extremism. Of course, what took place was ugly. Offending the Holy Prophet is quite ugly. This has very little or nothing to do with freedom and freedom of speech. This is the weakness of and the abuse of freedom, and in many places it is a crime. It shouldn't take place, and I do hope the day will come in which politicians will not seek to offend those whom others hold holy,"

When asked by Piers Morgan whether he thought protesters should stop threatening U.S. staff abroad, Ahmadinejad said he cannot say what other people or nations should do, but that he believes "extremism gives birth to following and subsequent extremists."

"Perhaps if the politicians take a better position in the West vis-a-vis offensive words or thoughts or pictures towards what we hold holy, I think conditions will improve,"

[/QUOTE]

But he must be wrong, since Iran is evil and everything...

Never thought I'd see the day when I'd fully agree with the president of Iran.

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]
But he must be wrong, since Iran is evil and everything...
Never thought I'd see the day when I'd fully agree with the president of Iran.[/QUOTE]
Oh my goodness, you're right. He sounds completely level-minded in that quote.
Actually, since I haven't read much about him I really don't have any way of knowing what he's really like, but I was still surprised by how reasonable he sounds. It would be very nice if people didn't just seek specifically to offend/hurt people just to make a statement with seemingly good intentions.

He (Ahmadinejad) went on to talk about gays...

[QUOTE]"I'm sorry. Let me ask you this. Do you believe that anyone is giving birth through homosexuality? Homosexuality ceases procreation. Who has said that if you like or believe in doing something ugly, and others do not accept your behavior, that they're denying your freedom?" he asked Morgan.
"Proper education must be given ... the education system must be revamped. The political system must be revamped. And these must be also reformed, revamped along the way. But if you, if a group recognizes an ugly behavior or ugly deed as legitimate, you must not expect other countries or other groups to give it the same recognition."
[/QUOTE]

I have talked before about what I view as the sometimes dogmatic nature of free speech in America. Not picking on America, it's just the purest example of free speech values I know. (Hey, Canada banned "Money for Nothing" from the radio for a while in 1985. Oh sorry. In 2011.) But statements like Mr. Jingles' in the form of "X is ignorant and despicable, but I will defend their to right speak their mind" pop up as reliably as dandelions at these times and illustrate a particular uncritical absolutism that both mirrors elements of Middle Eastern cultural expression and partly explains Islamic rejection of Western values. Social and cultural costs born of the deification of the First Amendment are almost never examined and when they are it seems to simply be accepted that steeping in all manner of garbage is not a cost of freedom, but freedom itself. Crush fetish vidoes (eventually specifically outlawed in subsequent legislation under animal cruelty), Super PACs, and the Westboro gang are an off-the-top-of-my-head sampling of things a Supreme Court majority has decided America really needs to keep tyranny at bay. Maybe so. But somewhere in the ideas dismissed as the rantings of an intolerant society mired in the dark ages is an opportunity to look more completely at Western values. Not to change, but to see what we sometimes pay for failing to adequately discern and to acknowledge that there is a rational basis for the rejection by other cultures of some of our outcomes.

I brought up the NY Mosque issue earlier because beyond arguments both explicit and implied that Americans are above descent into dogma, there is also a sense that the system of values is not only superior, but fosters a level headed and sometimes self sacrificing fealty to higher principles. In fact elements of the statement of Ahmadinejad and other opinion makers in the Arab that would be almost univerally rejected by most of us are virtually identical in structure to the "it has little or nothing to do with freedom of religion" canard from the Ground Zero mosque days. In the current climate we offer a comparison of how western culture would (or wouldn't) react if Jesus Christ or a church was blasphemed, a self evident observation that is only deceptively illuminating because special protection for religious thoughts is not a cultural value in America. Nothing is being tested here, where Middle Eastern patience and understanding is being pushed to its limit, just as it was for those Americans who processed the NY mosque proposal with hurt, anger and humilation. We don't have to surrender principles to acknowledge that there is nothing new under the sun and to regret not our values but the way that they can be denigrating and trying to our own citizens and those in other countries alike. To understand that a better kind of imperfection is still imperfection.

Read this this morning....timely given this conversation. I don't think the chances of an ad like this being allowed to appear in Canadian public transportation areas are much more than zero. Though one never knows with our current government. Assuming it would be rejected in Canada, and knowing it is allowed in the US over the objections of the Transportation Authority, who would be "right"?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/ads-posted-in-new-york-subways-test-limits-of-free-speech/article4568396/

[QUOTE] [b]GratefulFan wrote:[/b]
I have talked before about what I view as the sometimes dogmatic nature of free speech in America. Not picking on America, it's just the purest example of free speech values I know. (Hey, Canada banned "Money for Nothing" from the radio for a while in 1985. Oh sorry. In 2011.) But statements like Mr. Jingles' in the form of "X is ignorant and despicable, but I will defend their to right speak their mind" pop up as reliably as dandelions at these times and illustrate a particular uncritical absolutism that both mirrors elements of Middle Eastern cultural expression and partly explains Islamic rejection of Western values. Social and cultural costs born of the deification of the First Amendment are almost never examined and when they are it seems to simply be accepted that steeping in all manner of garbage is not a cost of freedom, but freedom itself. Crush fetish vidoes (eventually specifically outlawed in subsequent legislation under animal cruelty), Super PACs, and the Westboro gang are an off-the-top-of-my-head sampling of things a Supreme Court majority has decided America really needs to keep tyranny at bay. Maybe so. But somewhere in the ideas dismissed as the rantings of an intolerant society mired in the dark ages is an opportunity to look more completely at Western values. Not to change, but to see what we sometimes pay for failing to adequately discern and to acknowledge that there is a rational basis for the rejection by other cultures of some of our outcomes.
I brought up the NY Mosque issue earlier because beyond arguments both explicit and implied that Americans are above descent into dogma, there is also a sense that the system of values is not only superior, but fosters a level headed and sometimes self sacrificing fealty to higher principles. In fact elements of the statement of Ahmadinejad and other opinion makers in the Arab that would be almost univerally rejected by most of us are virtually identical in structure to the "it has little or nothing to do with freedom of religion" canard from the Ground Zero mosque days. In the current climate we offer a comparison of how western culture would (or wouldn't) react if Jesus Christ or a church was blasphemed, a self evident observation that is only deceptively illuminating because special protection for religious thoughts is not a cultural value in America. Nothing is being tested here, where Middle Eastern patience and understanding is being pushed to its limit, just as it was for those Americans who processed the NY mosque proposal with hurt, anger and humilation. We don't have to surrender principles to acknowledge that there is nothing new under the sun and to regret not our values but the way that they can be denigrating and trying to our own citizens and those in other countries alike. To understand that a better kind of imperfection is still imperfection.[/QUOTE]


I think there is basically no disagreement here with your thoughts at all. Of course there are excesses and each time we have to re-evalutae which legally protected rights we have to make a priority and of course other cultures have every right to make other priorities.

You say that ".... and the Westboro gang are an off-the-top-of-my-head sampling of things a Supreme Court majority has decided America really needs to keep tyranny at bay." Of course that is not what the judges decided and you know it. No judge said that anybody "needs" the Westboro fanatics to keep tyranny at bay - they decided that the actions of the fanatics were protected by the 1st amendmend and therefore the court could not sanction these actions. Now a society can make laws that prohibit such actions during a private funeral (for example) but as long as such laws are not in place a court cannot and should not amend the laws in ad-hoc decisions, it would be a bad precedent with regard to the division of power. It is horrible when fanatics riot in the streets to get their point of view heard or abuse the freedom of speech to incite hatred but the freedom of speech is a core principle of any democracy and the utmost care must be applied when this fundamental right should be limited by laws. Definitely it should not be limited under the influence of shock and disgust in the wake of the recent anti-Islam movie. We must be over-careful not to go back on basic rights only because some fanatics disrupt private funerals, publish stupid videos or burn flags etc. I would not want my government to be entitled to forbid all kinds of unwelcome rallies or publications on the ground of keeping the public peace or other similar excuses.

[QUOTE] [b]YourValentine wrote:[/b]
I think there is basically no disagreement here with your thoughts at all. Of course there are excesses and each time we have to re-evalutae which legally protected rights we have to make a priority and of courseother cultures have every right to make other priorities.[/QUOTE]
There might be quite a bit of disagreement in the United States. I don't think I would reach first for the the term 're-evaluation' in discussing America and the concept of the place of free speech. It seems to me that all the major cultural forces from the structure of governance through America's self image and self definition to it's larger system of beliefs is predisposed instead to reaffirmation. A deceptively subtle distinction.

When the fetish crush videos were ruled protected speech the government had argued for the societal costs to be balanced against the right of free expression. Justice Roberts guaged that position to be a "a free-floating test for First Amendment coverage", something "startling and dangerous". The law the government was defending was ultimately struck down by the Court because it was ruled too broad to be constitutional. It could theoretically be used to criminalize hunting images, for example. When the government replied that it only intended to use the law against depiction of extreme animal cruelty the withering response was that a law deemed unconstitutional would not be held up because the governement promised not to misuse it.

As it so often is with America it is a position of hawk-like vigilance; the 'slippery slope' argument focused at least as much on what could happen and has happened as it is on what is happening right now. While history and the nature of power does give credence to that, other democracies like Canada have been more willing to wade into the messy present with what could certainly be termed free floating tests of freedom, with all their uncertain outcomes and inherent risks. I'm not holding that out as better. In fact it is the system's very vulnerabiltity to error, to overstepping, or understepping, the potential to have both great achievements and emarassing mistakes in the same week that keeps the debate urgent and self doubt sharp. When it comes to its concepts of freedom the last thing America seems plagued by is self doubt. You'll find many who grit their teeth over freedom's underbelly but very few who don't 'know' it's the best system in the best country in the world.  In so many ways America is a great country,  a fascinating country.  But when you look at what gets dumped into the culture in the name of freedom and its protection, and you look at other western democracies who don't for the most part suffer the same thing in the same way, and yet sustain societies arguably every bit the equal of the United States in practical and meaningful freedoms, it's hard not to conclude that what is given up is not fully returned.

Finally, do you think the great roar from vast swaths of the United States that have savaged "apologies for our values" delivered by government and it's emissaries is truly consistent with a broad American acknowledgement that other cultures have other priorities, and that that principle perhaps even is due some kind of limited, relative respect?

[QUOTE] [b]YourValentine wrote:[/b]
You say that ".... and the Westboro gang are an off-the-top-of-my-head sampling of things a Supreme Court majority has decided America really needs to keep tyranny at bay." Of course that is not what the judges decided and you know it. No judge said that anybody "needs" the Westboro fanatics to keep tyranny at bay - they decided that the actions of the fanatics were protected by the 1st amendmend and therefore the court could not sanction these actions...[/QUOTE]
Yes, my phrasing was a bit flip and perhaps it should not have been, but it was deliberately so because I found the decision and it's practical outcome completly absurd. The Court found that that Mr. Snyder could not seek tort compensation for intentional infliction of emotional distress because the Phelps gang's speech was protected because it was on matters of public concern, on a public street and did not flow from a personal grudge. Nothing I could craft would adequately capture Justice's Alito's passionte dissent. The upshot was that what was done was a calculated vicious personal attack on a private person for private gain, and not in fact on matters of public interest, and that their speech did not serve public interest or qualify for First Amendment protection. All facts I find utterly self evident. I think everybody in the world probably finds them utterly self evident on some level.

When counter protesters showed up at Phelps pickets they often organized deliberate human walls to shield the grieving from the vicious antics. Sometimes, more menacingly, they formed human walls around the Phelps family. Their actions are the actions of people who believe a terrible, outrageous and completely unacceptable personal attack is happening. That is what their human wall is protecting funeral goers from, isn't it? They rejected in essence the Phelps' rights to their legal speech by physically blocking their signs from the view of others by surrounding them, or they stood in between the Phelps and their intended targets and created a visual and aural barrier that blocked the message from being delivered. They were essentially the living embodiment of Alito's dissent, yet how many would have grudgingly affirmed the ruling in the same moment? On some level it was simply not rational. It's like the classic body language betrayal when you're saying yes and shaking your head no, or swearing you didn't do it with a nod. The Phelps gamed the system the whole way and won at the highest court in the land. I will always think of it as an utter travesty.

This discussion has risen up around the film, but it's makers and it's content have little import with regard to freedom of expression to me. That movie is neither what the freedoms were meant for nor what meaningfully threatens them. He/they have legal protection, as they should, and that won't change. There has been an international impact and a tough dynamic has resulted that needs some thoughtful handling and deserves public attention, but as far as the domestic discussion goes I wouldn't spend 30 seconds defending Mr. Innocence of Muslims' rights to do anything if I were American. Or bothering to find a creative array of derogatory words to describe the thing. I'd just go have a hot chocolate or something instead. Buy a nice CD. Anything but sit around crediting crap as something my freedom hinges on, truth, or not.

PS. Don't yell at me for anything! I'm a bit traumatized. I lost about 2/3 of that reply hitting a rogue button on my mouse. Undoubtedly my first attempt was much more cohesive, correct, grammatically sound, had better points and superior spelling, and definitely no sandwich crumbs on the keyboard which I can't truthfully claim for this one. Please refer to it if you find yourself in serious disagreement. :)

Which of the following "caused" violent worldwide riots?
A) A crucafix soaking in urine at an American Museum entitled "Piss Christ"
B) Mainstream fictional films about Chrisianity (The DaVinci Code, The Last Temptation of Christ etc ...)
C) A small, independent film by nobody of importance entitled "The Innocense of Muslims"
D) Comics or sketches of an Islamic prophet.
E) "A" and "B" did not result in any riots.

Which of the following countries might find itself stuck with a museum featuring a photograph of a jar of 25 year old pee?

A) Yemen
B) Iran
C) The United States
D) Sweden
E) France
F) "A" and "B" will probably never have museums with pee

:P